Allowed¶5

Gurucharan Singh Juneja v. Satpal Singh Juneja

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2024WP227/51/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP227 No. 51 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Deepak Kumar Tiwari J., order dated 24.06.2024; amendment of pleadings at appellate stage; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Order 41 Rule 27(1) CPC; application to be decided at time of hearing of appeal on merits; impugned order dated 09.12.2022 of 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No.(A)33/2020 set aside; Khemchand Mulchand v. Government of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 MPLJ 524 relied on; writ petition allowed; Surguja; Ambikapur; de-linked from WP227/3/2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 09.12.2022 set aside; the 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur directed to decide the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC afresh at the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No.(A)33/2020 on merits. ¶5

Gurucharan Singh Juneja Vs Satpal Singh Juneja — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of pleadings made at the appellate stage can be decided before the appeal is heard on merits, or must it be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal?

¶3

Court's answer

An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of pleadings made at the appellate stage has to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits; it cannot be decided unless the appeal is first heard on merits.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No.(A)33/2020 rejecting the petitioner/defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not sustainable and is set aside; the concerned Appellate Court is directed to decide the said application afresh at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) allowed WP227 No. 51 of 2023 challenging the order dated 09.12.2022 of the 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No.(A)33/2020, whereby the petitioner/defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of pleadings made at the appellate stage was rejected. Relying on Khemchand Mulchand v. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (Civil Revision No.6767/1968, decided 12.12.1968, 1972 MPLJ 524), the Court held that an application for amendment of pleadings made at the appellate stage has to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits and cannot be decided unless the appeal is first heard on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the Appellate Court was directed to decide the amendment application afresh at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 51 of 2023

¶4

Gurucharan Singh Juneja S/o Late Mohar Singh Aged About 71 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Satpal Singh Juneja S/o Late Joginder Singh Juneja Aged About 45 Years

¶8

2. Inderpal Singh Juneja S/o Late Joginder Singh Juneja Aged About 36 Years

¶9

3. Smt. Rabinder Kaur Wd/o Late Joginder Singh Juneja Aged About 75 Years

¶10

Respondent No.1 to 3 are R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Smt. Balbir Kaur W/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 65 Years

¶12

5. Tanvir Singh S/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 45 Years

¶13

6. Harpreet Singh S/o Late Manjit Singh Aged About 53 Years

¶14

Respondent No.4 to 6 are R/o Chawla Cloth Store, Station Road Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶15

7. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Dhanbir Singh Khera Aged About 46 Years R/o Faujigali, Bishrampur, Police Station And Tahsil Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

8. Gurucharan Kaur W/o Surender Singh Bhatla Aged About 47 Years R/o Majdoor Thela Shop, Near Mastana Hotel, Ranjhi, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

¶17

9. Smt. Smit Kaur W/o Maninder Kaur Saluja Aged About 36 Years R/o Bharat Kids, Agresan Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

10. Smt. Aarti Dubey D/o Shri J. N. Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o Kenabandh, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶19

11. Smt. Sandhya Tiwari W/o Shri Dinanath Tiwari Aged About 37 Years R/o Takiya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶20

¶21

12. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent No.12 : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, PL For Respondent No.1, 2 &3 : Mr. M.P.S Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent No.7, 8 & 9 : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶26

24.06.2024

¶27

1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this case is de-linked from WP227/3/2023.

¶28

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the 1^st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Appeal No.(A)33/2020 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C has been rejected.

¶29

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law relating to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of pleading made at the appellate stage has to be considered at the time of final hearing unless the appeal is first heard on merits the said issue cannot be decided. The pleading is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and he would place reliance in the matter of Khemchand Mulchand Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal decided on 12.12.1968 in Civil Revision No.6767/1968 reported in 1972 MPLJ 524 and

¶30

¶31

referred to para 5 of the said judgment which read thus:-

¶32

“5.What has been said in relation to an application under Order 41, rule 27 (1) applies equally to the disposal of an application for amendment of pleadings made at the appellate stage. The question whether a party should or should not be allowed to amend its pleadings at the appellate stage cannot in its very nature be decided unless the appeal is first heard on merits. The order of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, permitting the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 to produce additional evidence and to amend their written statement must, therefore, be set aside and the Additional District Judge must be directed to consider the said non-applicants' application under Order 41, rule 27 and the application for amendment of the written statement after hearing the appeal on merits.”

¶33

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 /Mr. Bhatia would also support the aforesaid settled legal proposition that the same has to be considered at the time of hearing the appeal on merits.

¶34

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the principle laid down in the matter of Khemchand Mulchand (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside and the concerned Appellate Court is directed to decide the said application afresh at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.

¶35

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid

¶36

extent. Sd/-

¶37

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶38

Priyanka

Gurucharan Singh Juneja v. Satpal Singh Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurucharan Singh Juneja v. Satpal Singh Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.M.,Korba Super Thermal Power Vs Sunil Ashtakar and Ors.

Mukesh Singh @ Panchar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savita Niyogi Vs Sudeep Niyogi

Satpal Singh Juneja, Vs Gurucharan Singh

Ashok Mutu Bharat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh