Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2572
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ran Vijai Singh, J.
Sunil Kumar -Appellant
Versus
Neera Sangal -Respondent
Writ A No. 60781 of 2013
Decided On : 11-11-2013
For the Petitioner: Virendra Kumar
The flexibility of allowing amendment applications at any stage of the proceeding.
Headnote:
Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code - Application for Amendment - The court considered the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the subsequent amendment application, and the sequence in which they should be decided.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was rejected. A revision was filed and allowed, remitting the matter for fresh decision. Subsequently, an amendment application was filed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's request to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code first, before the amendment application, citing that the amendment application can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sequence in which the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the subsequent amendment application should be decided.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the flexibility of allowing amendment applications at any stage of the proceeding and the relevance of the Lucknow Bench decision in reaching its conclusion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision, upholding the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the decision to allow the amendment application.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.7.2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Muzaffar Nagar passed in SCC Revision No. 20 of 2012 and order dated 21.5.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Case No. 18 of 2007. Vide order dated 21.5.2012, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rejected the objection of the petitioner to decide the application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code first and thereafter, decide the amendment application no. 56-C, whereas by the subsequent order dated 27.7.2013, the petitioner's revision, challenging the order dated 21.5.2012, has been dismissed.
2. It appears, SCC case no. 18 of 2007 (Neeru Vs. Sunil Kumar) was filed by one Neeru against the present petitioner. In the said case, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating therein that no cause of action has been disclosed, therefore, the plaint should be rejected. This application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 30.9.2009.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order, revision no. 23 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 14.3.2011 and the matter was remitted for fresh decision by the learned JSCC fixing 28.3.2011. It appears, thereafter, the respondent filed an amendment application, which was numbered as application no. 56-C, amending the plaint with a view to fill up the lacuna. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed an application praying that his application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC be decided first. That application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 21.5.2012 on the ground that amendment application can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding, taking note of the decision of the Lucknow Bench of this Court.
4. On being confronted as to whether the petitioner has brought the aforesaid decision of Lucknow Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to prepare the case.
5. As prayed, put up this case on 14.11.2013 in the additional cause list.
___________________
