Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T. Vaiphei, J.
Sri Anil Chandra Poddar, S/o Late Girish Chandra Poddar - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Uttam Poddar and Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 76 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Ms. A. Banik
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Mr. A.K. Pal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence in seeking to amend pleadings or adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 17, Order XLI Rule 27 - The court discussed the principles governing the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the conditions precedent before allowing a party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and the requirement that the evidence sought to be produced could not be produced at the stage of trial despite exercise of due diligence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to amend his plaint and adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. The court rejected the application for amendment and production of additional evidence, citing lack of due diligence and the absence of new information that could not have been produced earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence in omitting vital facts from the plaint at the time of filing the suit, and that the application for amendment and production of additional evidence was a desperate effort to delay disposal of the appeal or to plug serious loopholes in the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's failure to demonstrate due diligence in omitting vital facts from the plaint, and the desperate effort made by the petitioner to delay disposal of the appeal or to plug serious loopholes in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and the requirement that the evidence sought to be produced could not be produced at the stage of trial despite exercise of due diligence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's claims. The interim order, if any, was vacated and no order as to costs was given.
This civil revision is directed against the order dated 29-02-2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati District in T.A. No. 9 of 2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner for amending his plaint and for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage.
2. As the factual matrix need not be discussed for disposal of this revision, I will straightaway refer to the relevant part of the impugned order, which is in the following terms:
“Law is already settled that even at the appellate stage also, petition for amendment may be allowed for due adjudication of the dispute between the parties and if by allowing this petition real picture comes before the Court.
The Court is not going to decide at this stage whether the proposed amendments are based on correct assertions or false assertions. Even if all the assertions made in the proposed amendment are taken to be gospel truth, still for reasons stated above, the real picture will not come before this Court and will not help the Court in properly adjudicating the matter, rather it will create confusion. As it appears, the appellant is not furnishing the correct information to the Court by the proposed amendment in true form along with submission of all the relevant documents.
All the facts proposed to be incorporated in the plaint and all the deeds proposed to be adduced as additional evidence were already in the custody of the appellant at the time of filing of the suit, but same were not placed though he had ample scope to place the same before the learned trial court at that time. After amendment of provision of Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. in the year 2002, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless it is shown that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
Here, if the matter is viewed leniently in favour of the appellant that despite due diligence he could not place those facts and documents before the commencement of the trial and even if thereby the proposed amendment is allowed and the documents proposed to be taken into evidence as additional evidence, still this Court will not be able to find out the clear picture of the situation and to give proper justice to both the parties.
For that reason, the petition filed under Order 6, rule 17 C.P.C. and the petition filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence as filed on 31-07-2008 are hereby rejected.
Fix 14-07-2016 for argument.”
3. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is in the following terms :
“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
The principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are by now well settled. Order VI Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Under the unamended provisions, all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. However, with the introduction of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, a distinction has now been made between pre-trial amend
