The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of an amendment application in a partition suit. The High Court held that the amendments sought to withdraw admissions on possession and change the suit's nature, thus violating settled principles under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Revision dismissed as it lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 52 of 2019
Revisionist :- Expression Ethnic Wear Co. And Another Opposite Party :- Ajay Kumar Maurya Counsel for Revisionist :- Yanendra Pandey,Neeraj Tripathi
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Yanendra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists.
The present revision has been filed making a prayer to set aside the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by A.D.J. (13)/Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad in SCC Suit No. 32 of 2016 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Expression Ethnic Wear Co. and another), whereby the application filed by the revisionists under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking certain amendments in their written statement, has been rejected.
It is not disputed that the application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed at the stage when the trial had commenced, the evidence of the plaintiff had been closed and the proceedings were at the stage of the evidence of the defendants. As regards the amendments which were being proposed, the trial court has recorded that some of the pleadings which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendments had already been substantially pleaded in the written statement filed by the defendants. The court below has further recorded that in the written statement filed earlier the defendants had asserted themselves to be in possession of the disputed property; however by means of the proposed amendments a contrary stand was sought to be taken which would amount to withdrawal of the admissions made in the written statement, and also would change the very nature of the proceedings. Accordingly, it has been held that the said amendments could not be allowed as per the settled principles with regard to amendment in the pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.
The trial court has also taken note of the fact that in terms of an order passed by the High Court there was a direction for disposal of the proceedings within six months, and the application seeking amendment in the written statement was with a view to delay the proceedings.
Counsel for the revisionist does not dispute the legal proposition that by means of an amendment, the very nature of the proceedings could not be altered and that any admission made in the written statement could not be withdrawn by
seeking amendment in the pleadings.
No material error or illegality has been pointed out in the order of the court below.
The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.4.2019 Pratima
(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow amendments in pleadings that alter the nature of proceedings and withdraw admissions on possession.
Whether an application for amendment filed after evidence was closed constitutes an attempt to delay proceedings.
Whether the lower court committed any material error or illegality in rejecting the amendment application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
