The High Court allowed the applicant to amend his written statement despite the trial court's rejection, holding the amendment to be formal and non-prejudicial, since the hearing had not yet commenced.
Quashed the order rejecting amendment; allowed amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/-.
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.
CMP No.495 of 2016
16.11.2016 This petition challenges the order dated 5.1.2016 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Balangir in C.S. No.25 of 2012. By the said order, learned trial cour
t rejected the application for amendment of the written statement.
Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the following rel
iefs;
I. It be declared that the plaintiff has a legitimate right o be up-graded as a Dealer of HMSI
Products for the District of Balangir and the defendant No.2 may be directed to honour the sa
me.
II. The letter of intent, if any, issued in favour of the defendant No.1 be declared as In-Val
id.
III. The defendant No.2 be injuncted to sign any agreement with the defendant No.1 for the dea
lership of HMSI Products.
IV. The defendant No.1 may be injuncted to claim as the Authorized Dealer of the defendant No.
2 and from selling the HMSI Products.
V. Costs of the suit and any other reliefs, which the Learned Court deems fit and proper may k
indly be granted to the plaintiff.
Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant no.1 entered appearance and filed a
written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Defendants 2 and 4 entered appea
rance and filed separate written statements denying the assertions made in the plaint. While t
he matter stood thus, defendant no.1-petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
to amend the written statement. In the proposed amendment, defendant no.1 sought to incorpora
te the fact that the defendant no.4 was an authorized dealer of defendant no.2. Defendant no.4
had the option of appointing different persons in different district for the limited purpose
of selling spare parts and accessories. Defendant no.4 JAS MOTORS, Sambalpur itself being a de
aler was in no position or was legally not empowered to appoint any dealer. In order words, on
e dealer can not appoint another dealer. Only the defendant no.2 has the authority or the powe
r to appoint dealers of their choice. The defendant No.1 Narendra Kumar Sahoo, pursuant to the
advertisement offered to be a dealer under defendant no.2. He duly appeared and was interview
ed and was successful there. The plaintiff did not even appear for the interview which was con
ducted by the defendant No.2 to appoint dealers. The defendant No.2 is an internationally accl
aimed company, who would not appoint dealer without verifying their financial strength, reputa
tion in the market, location and availability of place and space etc. The plaintiff has neithe
r any financial strength nor adequate place or space nor any education or experience to be app
ointed as a dealer. For some time the plaintiff was selling seat covers and foot materials of
Honda Motors. That by itself will not entitle the plaintiff to be appointed as a dealer. There
after, the defendant No.1 was duly appointed by the defendant No.2 as dealer for the district
of Bolangir and the defendant No.1 being the proprietor of Amarnath Honda, Bolangir got the de
alership legally and duly from the defendant No.2 and the dealership agreement was signed betw
een the parties on 18th day of September, 2012. Therefore, the defendant No.1 and more particu
larly M/s. Amarnath Enterprises is the duly and legally appointed dealer of defendant No.2. Th
e dealership agreement between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 having been signed, the d
efendant No.1 and more particularly M/s. Amarnath Honda is carrying on the business for the la
st three years without any problem from any quarter. Thus the suit and the prayer made in the
plaint have all become infructuous and the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. By Order dated 5.1.2016, learned
trial court came to hold that the facts are already stated in the written statement. The prop
osed amendment is not at all imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the suit as t
he same is already on record.
Heard Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagaband
hu Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.
On a cursory perusal of the application for amendment, it is evident that the
proposed amendment is formal in nature. The same will not change the nature and character of t
he suit. Moreover, the hearing of the suit has not yet commenced.
In view of the same, the order dated 5.1.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judg
e (Junior Division), Balangir in C.S. No.25 of 2012 is quashed. The proposed amendment is allo
wed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- which has been paid by Mr.Nanda, learned counsel f
or the petitioner to Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 in Court today.
The petition is disposed of.
Dr.A.K.Rath J.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application to amend writen statement seeking admission of existing facts can be allowed if the facts are already on record.
Whether the proposed amendment is formal in nature and does not change the nature of the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narendra Kumar Sahoo (Defendant No.1)
Plaintiff
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court