Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Smt. Kinder Jeet Kaur and another – Appellant
Versus
Karam Jeet Singh - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 130 of 2022
Decided on : 21-03-2024
Amendment - Specific Performance - CPC Order VI Rule 17 - The court emphasized the liberal approach towards amendments in written statements, allowing them post-trial commencement if they clarify existing facts without causing prejudice to the opposing party.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract for agricultural land against the defendants, who claimed they were defrauded into signing the agreement. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to clarify their defense and address non-joinder of necessary parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendments were clarifications rather than withdrawals of admissions and did not introduce new defenses. The trial court's rejection of the amendments was deemed an error, as it failed to apply the liberal standards for amendments.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application to amend their written statement after the trial had commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amendments to written statements should be allowed liberally, especially when they clarify existing defenses and do not cause prejudice to the other party, even after the trial has begun.
Result: The revision is allowed; the trial court's order is set aside, and the amendment application is granted.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.-This civil revision is directed against an order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur dated the 6th of July, 2022, rejecting an application by the defendants to amend their written statement.
2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted O.S. No. 203 of 2021 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur for specific performance of contract against the defendant-revisionists. He claimed specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 30.11.2018, said to be executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4, to wit, Jagtar Singh and Smt. Sukhraj Kaur. Not to enter the thicket of facts that parties have pleaded in this case, but to take note of those essential, that form the essence of the controversy, leading to this revision, it would, for a first, need be said how the defendant-revisionists are related to each other. The defendant-revisionist No. 3 Jagtar Singh, is the son of Smt. Sukhraj Kaur, defendant-revisionist No. 4. Defendant-revisionist No. 1, Smt. Kinder Jeet Kaur is Jagtar Singh's wife, whereas Master Gurudeep Singh Sandhu, defendant-revisionist No. 2, is Jagtar and Kinder Jeet Kaur's son, a minor aged about 12 years. The plaintiff-respondent, Karam Jeet Singh, is a Non-Resident Indian, settled in Birmingham, United Kingdom. He has instituted the present suit for specific performance through his power of attorney holder, Karan Singh, a resident of Village Tali Farm, Post and Tehsil Bajpur in the district of Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.
3. The substance of the plaintiff-respondent's case is that he entered into a contract to purchase the suit property with defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4, which is agricultural land, comprising different plot numbers, described in the plaint, admeasuring a total of 2.0305 hectares and situate at Village Shekhupura, Tehsil Swar, District Rampur. The defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4 were recorded bhumidhars with transferable rights in the suit property. The plaintiff-respondent, on one hand, and the defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4, on the other, according to the plaintiff-respondent, voluntarily entered into the suit agreement dated 30.11.2018, duly admitted to registration by the Sub-Registrar, Swar, Rampur, where defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4 covenanted to convey the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs. 78,52,000/-. The suit agreement, that was executed, was one without possession. Out of the agreed sale consideration, defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4, according to the plaintiff-respondent, received an earnest of Rs. 70 lakhs through cheques and cash, leaving a residue of Rs. 8,52,000/- to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. It was covenanted also by parties to the suit agreement that the sale-deed would be executed by 1.6.2020. It is the plaintiff's case that well before the arrival of the agreed date i.e. 1.6.2020, defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4 gifted away the suit property through registered gift deeds, both dated 29.2.2020 in favour of defendant-revisionist Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was, therefore, brought for specific performance of the suit agreement, cancellation of the two registered gifted deeds dated 29.2.2020, executed by defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of defendant-revisionist Nos. 1 and 2, besides a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant-revisionists from further transferring the suit property in favour of any third-party or delivering its possession to anyone else.
4. A written statement was filed in the suit on behalf of defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the suit. The defendant-revisionists Nos. 3 and 4, in substance, plead in their written statement that they were defrauded by Balkar Singh, a son of defendant No. 3's elder brother into executing the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, Karam Jeet Singh, also called Paul UK. It is
The court established that amendments to written statements can be allowed post-trial commencement if they clarify existing facts and do not prejudice the opposing party.
A categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. The attempt to change the entire stand from denying the execution of the agreement to admitti....
The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and bona fide, legitimate, and necessary amendments, while rejecting mala fide, worthless, and dishonest amendments.
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
Point of Law : Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend ....
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.
Failures in due diligence and attempts to withdraw admissions in pleadings preclude amendments in civil suits post-evidence closure.
An amendment to a joint written statement cannot be made by one defendant without the consent of all other defendants who signed it, to avoid prejudice to their rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
