Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2475
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.P.Mehrotra
RAIS AHMAD
Versus
ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE ALIASE C ACTALIAS BUDAUN
Decided On : 14 November 2003
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49430 of 2003
R.P.AGRAWAL, S.Alim Shah,
An application for amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay, but if found to have been filed not in good faith, it may be rejected on that ground. Additionally, the necessary pleadings for claiming the benefit of a specific provision must be present in the original pleadings, and the court may not permit the pleading of law in the pleadings.
Headnote:
Amendment Application - Principles Governing Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267; Swami Durrkeshranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj v. Jagatguru Shri Shankaracharya Jyotish Peethadhiswar and others, 1983 All LJ 1270; Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, AIR 1985 SC 817; Gauri Bala Dutta v. IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge Varanasi and another, AIR 1991 Alld. 216; B. K. N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and another, 2000 (1) JCLR 333 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 614: 2001 (1) ARC 5 (SC ); Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, 2002 (2) ARC 594 (SC); Ganpat Lal Gupta and others v. Vth Additional District Judge, Deoria and others, 2003 (1) JCLR 710 (All) : 2003 (1) ARC 562
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dismissing the amendment application filed in a suit related to a disputed shop. The petitioner contested the suit and filed a written statement. The amendment application seeking amendments in the written statement was dismissed by the lower courts, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment application had been filed not bona fide, but merely with the object of keeping the suit pending. The court also noted that the necessary pleadings for claiming the benefit of a specific provision were already present in the written statement, and the amendment application was rightly rejected. The court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment application seeking amendments in the written statement should have been allowed. Additionally, the court considered the necessity of the amendments for proper adjudication of the controversy in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, highlighting that an application for amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. However, if the application is found to have been filed not in good faith, but with the object merely to prolong the proceedings, it may be rejected on that ground. The court also noted that the necessary pleadings for claiming the benefit of a specific provision were already present in the written statement, and the amendment application was rightly rejected.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 5-12-2002 (Annexure 5) to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/civil Judge (Junior Division), Badaun and the order dated 19-9- 2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge/special Judge (E. C. Act), Badaun.
2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Babu Ram Market, Badaun, the details whereof are given in the plaint of suit referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed shop. "
3. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (contesting respondents) filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent damages etc. in respect of the disputed shop. The respondent No. 6 herein was impleaded as the proforma defendant No. 2 in the said suit. The said suit was registered as SCC suit No. 5 of 1999.
4. It further appears that the petitioner contested the said suit and filed written statement dated 9-12- 1999, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
5. It further appears that the evidence of both the sides was recorded in the said suit.
6. It further appears that on 19-4-2002, the arguments of the parties were heard, and 27-4-2002 was fixed for judgment.
7. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an amendment application (No. 61 Ga) seeking amendments in the written statement filed in the said suit. Copy of the said amendment application has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
8. It further appears that the objections were filed on behalf the contesting respondents against the said amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Copy of the said objections has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
9. It further appears that by the order dated 5-12-2002 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/civil Judge (Junior Division), Badaun dismissed the said amendment application (No. 61 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, held in the said order dated 5- 12-2002 that the said amendment application (No. 61 Ga) had not been filed bona fide, but the same had been filed after the completion of the entire proceedings in the suit, merely with the object of keeping the suit pending.
10. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The said Revision was registered as SCC Civil Revision No. 2 of 2003.
11. By the order dated 19-9-2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), the learned Additional District Judge/special Judge (EC Act), Badaun dismissed the said SCC Civil Revision No. 2 of 2003. It was, inter alia, held in the said order dated 19-9-2003 that the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/civil Judge (Junior Division), Badaun had not committed any mistake in passing the said order dated 5-12-2002) and no interference was called for with the said order dated 5-12-2002.
12. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
13. I have heard Shri S. A. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. P. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 at length.
14. Shri S. A. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking amendments in the written statement ought to have been allowed on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the Courts below have rejected the said amendment application merely on the ground of delay and, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal. It is further submitted that the amendments sought by the petitioner were necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy in the suit, and, therefore, the amendments ought to have
