In a revision under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order allowing an amendment to the plaint. The court held that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy and that no pre-judicial prejudice flowed from the addition of new pleas.
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.
C.R. No. 5883 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 5883 of 2009
Date of Decision: October 14, 2009
Harcharan Singh @ Harcharan Dass
Vs.
Mahant Ganesh Dass and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The defendant has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by an order dated August 3, 2009 allowing the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff- respondents to incorporate the plea that the plaintiffrespondents had been in possession of the property in dispute prior to the filing of the suit and that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of
C.R. No. 5883 of 2009 [2]
the suit, besides permitting the plaintiff- respondents to add a relief of possession.
Counsel for the defendant- petitioner has vehemently contended that a false plea has been raised by the plaintiff- respondents that they had been dispossessed. The said plea was available at the initial stage but the plaintiffs had intentionally omitted to take up the said plea. He has placed reliance on Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & another , 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 763, a judgment of the Supreme Court laying down that the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not allow Court an amendment after the commencement of the trial and that a Court has got no jurisdiction to allow amendment after the evidence starts by filing of an affidavit of a witness.
After hearing counsel for the defendant and going through the impugned order I am of the opinion that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits a Court at any stage of the proceedings to amend the pleadings if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In the present case, right, title and interest of the plaintiff- respondents would be finally adjudicated in case the amendment is permitted to be allowed.
I have gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in Vidyabai’s case (supra). Para 14 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“14. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a
C.R. No. 5883 of 2009 [3]
condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed.
However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction to all to allow the amendment of the plaint.”
Since the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case, I do not find any ground for interference.
Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that a plea to the effect that Mahant Satnam Dass had renounced the world has also been permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment. The said plea was available at the time of filing of initial suit but the said plea was intentionally not taken in the original plaint.
I have considered the contention of counsel for the defendantpetitioner and I am of the view that allowing of such a plea has not in any manner, caused prejudice to the defendant- petitioner as the defendantpetitioner has got a right to deny the said plea specifically in the written statement for which the liberty has been given to the defendant before the trial Court.
C.R. No. 5883 of 2009 [4]
In view of said circumstances no ground is made out for
interference in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
October 14, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to interference in an order allowing amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after the filing of an affidavit of a witness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & anotherReferred¶18
Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & another, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 763
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harcharan Singh @ Harcharan Dass
Mahant Ganesh Dass and others
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
