M/S Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. versus Manohar Lal

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r. 17 and Or. VII, r. 14(3) - Applications under, rlw. s. 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act. 2001 - Seeking amendment of eviction petition and seeking permission to file additional documents in support of the amendment sought - Applications filed after conclusion of evidence - Applications dismissed by courts below - On appeal, held: The amendment proposed and permission sought for filing additional documents deserved to he allowed - Though there was delay in filing the applications, but the delay has been duly explained - Pleadings can be amended at any stage not only during pendency of trial, but also at the first and second appellate stage, provided the amendment proposed is bonafide, relevalll and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties - Filing of additional evidence is permissible u!Or. VII, r. 14(3) CPC at the stage of trial and u!Or. XIV, r. 27 CPC at the first and second appellate stage with the leave of the court - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - s. 21.

¶11

c

¶12

D

¶13

E

¶14

Allowing the appeals, the Court

¶15

HELD: 1. The amendment proposed by the appellant so also the permission sought for filing additional documents deserved to be allowed. It is for the reasons that firstly, the amendment proposed did not change the nature of the case originally set up by the appellant in the eviction petition; secondly, the amendment did not introduce any fresh cause of action; thirdly, the amendment was relevant for deciding the question of subletting and availability of alternative accommodation with the respondent; fourthly, the facts proposed in the amendment not being in the personal knowledge of the appellant and having obtained from the concerned State Department recently, the same could be allowed to be brought on record for its consideration;

F

G

H

923

924

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶22

(20 I 7] I S.C.R.

¶23

A fifthly, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the respondent, if the applications had been allowed because the respondent in such eventuality would have got an opportunity to make consequential amendment in his written statement and file additional documents in rebuttal; and lastly, in order to prove the case, the amendment proposed and permission to file documents should have been

¶24

B granted. [Para 16] [928-B-D] 2. It is true that there was some delay on the part of the

¶25

appellant in filing the applications, but, the appellant had explained the delay. One cannot dispute that in appropriate cases, the parties are permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage not only duriug

¶26

c the peudency of the trial but also at the first and second appellate stage with the leave of the Court provided the amendment proposed is bon(I fide, relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties invoh;ed in the tis. The law also permits the parties to file additional evidenc~ at any stage of the trial (Order

¶27

D 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC) including at the first or/and second appellate Stage (Order 41Rule27 CPC) with the leave of the Court provided a case is made out to seek such indulgence. [Paras 17, 18] [928E-F] . . . . . .

¶28

As a consequence, the applications made by the

¶29

E appellant for amendment of the eviction petition and the application made for filing additional documents are allowed and the documents, as prayed for, are allowed to be taken on record. To meet the ends of justice, the respondent shall pay cost of Rs.1500/- to the appellant. [Para 21] [929-A-B]

¶30

F Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 : [2009] 15 SCR 103 ~ relied on.

¶31

Case Law Referennce

¶32

[2009] 15 SCR 103 relied on Para 14

¶33

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 23432344 of20 I 7.

¶34

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2015 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4088 and 4089of2014.

¶35

H

¶36

MIS CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. 925 MANOHAR LAL

¶37

Ms. Shobha, Bonny, Adv. for the Appellant. Shadan Farasat,T.E.Jaswita, Advs. for the Respondent. The' Judgmentofthe Court was deliveredby ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE,-J.I.· Leave; granted. 2.These appeals.are. filed,against the final judgment and·order·· dated 08.01.2()15passedbythe High CourtofRajasthan at Jaipur Bench, JaipurinSffCivil Writ Petition No.4088/2014 andSBCivil Writ Petition No.4089/2014 whereqy the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein challenging the orderofthe Rent Tribunal dated 26.02.2014 dismissing its application under Order 7 Rule 14(3)ofthe CodeofCivil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with Section21ofthe Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2qo l (hereinafter referred to~s"the Act") and Order 6 Rule l 7ofthe Code read with Section21ofthe Act respectively.	A · B c
3.Weherein set out the facts,inbrief, to appreciate the issue involvedinthis appeal. 4.The short question, which arises for considerationinthis appeal, is whether the Rent Tribunal andthe.High Court were justifiedinrejecting the two applications filed by the appellantintheir pending main eviction petition, viz., one filed under Order 6 Rule17ofthe Code read with Section21ofthe Act (Annexure P-6) seeking to amend their eviction petition and other filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3)ofCode read with Section21ofAct seeking permission to file some additional documents insupportofthe amendment sought? 5.The appellantisthe plaintiff/applicant whereas the respondent is the defendant/non-applicant. 6. The appellant-a limited company is the ownerofthe shop (detailsofthe shop are describedincolumn 3ofthe main Application No.741of2005(Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as "the suit shop"). The appellant has let out the suit shop to the respondent on a monthly rent ofRs.670/-. 7.Theappellant has filed the eviction petition against the respondent under the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur claiming evictionofthe respondent from the suit shop. The eviction is claimed, _inter alia,_on the groundofsublettingofthe suit shop alleged to have	D E . F G H

Ms. Shobha, Bonny, Adv. for the Appellant.
Shadan Farasat,T.E.Jaswita, Advs. for the Respondent.
The' Judgmentofthe Court was deliveredby
**ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE,-J.**I.· Leave; granted.
2.These appeals.are. filed,against the final judgment and·order··
dated 08.01.2()15passedbythe High CourtofRajasthan at Jaipur Bench,
JaipurinSffCivil Writ Petition No.4088/2014 andSBCivil Writ Petition
No.4089/2014 whereqy the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed
by the appellant herein challenging the orderofthe Rent Tribunal dated
26.02.2014 dismissing its application under Order 7 Rule 14(3)ofthe
CodeofCivil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")
read with Section21ofthe Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2qo l (hereinafter
referred to~s"the Act") and Order 6 Rule l 7ofthe Code read with
Section21ofthe Act respectively.

A
· B
c

3.Weherein set out the facts,inbrief, to appreciate the issue
involvedinthis appeal.
4.The short question, which arises for considerationinthis appeal,
is whether the Rent Tribunal andthe.High Court were justifiedinrejecting
the two applications filed by the appellantintheir pending main eviction
petition, viz., one filed under Order 6 Rule17ofthe Code read with
Section21ofthe Act (Annexure P-6) seeking to amend their eviction
petition and other filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3)ofCode read with
Section21ofAct seeking permission to file some additional documents
insupportofthe amendment sought?
5.The appellantisthe plaintiff/applicant whereas the respondent
is the defendant/non-applicant.
6. The appellant-a limited company is the ownerofthe shop
(detailsofthe shop are describedincolumn 3ofthe main Application
No.741of2005(Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as "the suit
shop"). The appellant has let out the suit shop to the respondent on a
monthly rent ofRs.670/-.
7.Theappellant has filed the eviction petition against the
respondent under the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur claiming
evictionofthe respondent from the suit shop. The eviction is claimed,
_inter alia,_on the groundofsublettingofthe suit shop alleged to have

D
E
. F
G
H

¶38

926

¶39

[2017] I S.C.R.

¶40

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶41

A been done by the respondent in favour of one "Mis Goel Iron and Hardware Store". It is averred that the respondent has parted with the possession of the suit shop in favour of alleged sub-tenant without the consent of the appellant and hence he is liable to be evicted from the suit shop. The other ground on which the eviction is claimed relates to availability of an alternative accommodation to the respondent in the city B where he is carrying on his business.

¶42

The respondent filed his written statement. While admitting the tenancy, he denied material averments made in the eviction petition. The parties have adduc'ed their respective evidence. The case is now at its closing stage.

¶43

c

¶44

As mentioned above, the appellant, after close of the evidence, filed two applications. One was under Order 6 Rule I 7 of the Code read with Section 21 of the Act wherein they sought to amend theirmain eviction petition. It was alleged therein that the appellant had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking to find out the D name under which the respondent is carrying on the business in their alternative accommodation in the city. It was alleged that recently they were informed by the concerned department that the name of the respondent's shop is "Bright Iron Traders". The appellant, therefore, sought pennission to amend the eviction petition and substitute the name E of the shop which was initially mentioned in the eviction petition to the one proposed in the amendment application. In support of the proposed amendment, the appellant filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code read with Section 2 I of the Act seeking leave of the Court to file the documents, which they claimed to have obtained from the concerned department.

¶45

F

¶46

I 0. The respondent opposed these applications contending, inter alia, in his reply that firstly, both the applications were filed belatedly and secondly, neither the proposed amendment nor the documents sought to be filed are relevant for the disposal of the main case.

¶47

I I. By order dated 26.02.20 I 4, the Rent Tribunal dismissed both G the applications on the ground of delay and being immaterial.

¶48

H

¶49

Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed two writ petitions before the High Court. By impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and affirmed the order of the Rent Tribunal giving rise to filing of the appeals by special leave by the plaintiff/applicant before this Court.

¶50

927

¶51

M	/SCHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTIONPVT.LTD.v. MANOHARLAL[ABHAYMANOHAR SAPRE, J.]	927
perusal and wh applica for am down Develo 84,this culled asunde	13.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties andon ofthe recordofthe case,weare inclined to allow the appeals ile setting asideofthe impugned orders, allow the aforementioned tionsofthe appellant. 14.The principle applicable for deciding the application made endmentinthe pleadings remainsnomore_res integra_andislaid inseveral cases.Inthe caseofRevajeetuBuildersand pers vs. Narayanaswamy&Sons and Others, (2009)10SCC Court, after examining the entire previous caselawonthe subject, out the following principleinPara63ofthe judgment which reads r: "63.Oncritically analysing both the EnglishandIndian cases, some basic principlesemergewhichoughtto be takeninto consideration while allowingorrejecting the application for amendment: (1)whethertheamendmentsoughtisimperativefor properand effective adjudicationofthe case; (2)whetherthe application for amendment is bona fideor mala fide;	A B c D
	(3) the amendment should notcans~such prejudice to the otherside whichcannotbe compensatedadequatelyin termsofmoney; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injusticeor lead to multiple litigation; (5)whetherthe proposed amendment constitutionallyor fundamentally changes thenatureandcharacterofthe case;and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amend111ents ifa fresh suit on the amended claims would bebarredby limitation on the dateofapplication. Thesearesomeoftheimportantfactors which may be keptin mind while dealing with application filedunder Order6Rule17.Theseareonlyillustrativeandnot exhaustive."	E F G

¶52

H

¶53

928

¶54

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶55

(2017] I S.C.R.

¶56

A 15. Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the facts of the case at hand, we are of the considered opinion that the amendment proposed by the appellant so also the permission sought for filing additional documents des_erved to be allowed.

¶57

It is for the reasons that firstly, the amendment proposed did B not change the nature of the case originally set up by the appellant in the eviction petition; Secondly, the amendment did not introduce any.fresh cause of action; Thirdly, the amendment was relevant for deciding the question of subletting and availability of alternative accommodation with the respondent; Fourthly, the facts proposed in the amendment not being in the personal knowledge of the appellant and having obtained from the c concerned State department recently, the same could be allowed to be brought on record for its consideration; Fifthly, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the respondent, ifthe applications had been allowed because the respondent in such eventuality would have got an opportunity to · make consequential amendment i11'his written statement and file additional · D documents in rebuttal; and lastly, in order to prove the case, the amendment proposed and permission to file documents should have been granted.

¶58

It is true that there was some delay on the part of the appellant in filing the applications but, in ouropinion, the appellant had explained E the delay. One cannot dispute that in appropriate cases, the parties are permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage not only during the pendency of the trial but also at the first and se.cond appellate stage with the leave of the Court provided the amendment proposed is bonafide, relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the /is.

¶59

F

¶60

Similarly, the law also permits the parties to file additional· evidence at any stage of the trial [Order 7 Rule 14 (3)] including at the first or/and second appellate Stage (Order 41 Rule 27) with the leave of the Court provided a case is made out to seek such indulgence.

¶61

In this case, we find that the appellant has made out the case G in support of their two applications under consideration.

¶62

In the light of foregoing discussion, we cannot c_oncur with the reasoning and the 'Onclusion of the Courts below, which wrongly resulted in dismissal of the two applications filed by the appellant.

¶63

H

¶64

929

¶65

_MIS_CHAKRESHWARl CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.v.
MANOHAR LAL [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,J.]

¶66

21. The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned orders and the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal are set aside. As a consequence, the applications made by the appellant for amendmentofthe eviction petition and the application made for filing additional documents are allowed and the documents, as prayed for, are allowed to be taken on record. To meet the endsofjustice, the respondent shall pay costofRs.1500/- to the appellant. 22.Therespondentisalsograntedopportunityto make consequential amendmentinthe written statement and is further granted liberty to file any additional documentary evidence,ifhe so desires to fileinrebuttal. Parties are also granted I iberty to adduce any further oral evidenceinsupportoftheir caseinaddition to what has already been led.
23. The Tribunal shall conclude the proceedings and pass final orders within three months from the dateofreceiptofcopyofthis judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Tribunal on 20.02.2017 to enablethe .Rent Tribunal to conclude the proceedings. KalpanaK.Tripathy Appealsallo\·ed.

21. The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly allowed.
Impugned orders and the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Rent
Tribunal are set aside. As a consequence, the applications made by the
appellant for amendmentofthe eviction petition and the application made
for filing additional documents are allowed and the documents, as prayed
for, are allowed to be taken on record. To meet the endsofjustice, the
respondent shall pay costofRs.1500/- to the appellant.
22.Therespondentisalsograntedopportunityto make
consequential amendmentinthe written statement and is further granted
liberty to file any additional documentary evidence,ifhe so desires to
fileinrebuttal. Parties are also granted I iberty to adduce any further oral
evidenceinsupportoftheir caseinaddition to what has already been
led.

23. The Tribunal shall conclude the proceedings and pass final
orders within three months from the dateofreceiptofcopyofthis
judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Tribunal
on 20.02.2017 to enablethe .Rent Tribunal to conclude the proceedings.
KalpanaK.Tripathy
Appealsallo\·ed.

¶67

A

B

c

D

Appeals allo\·ed.

M/S Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Manohar Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Manohar Lal

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

Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors. versus Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Anr.

S. Sreedhar Reddy & Ors. versus Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Secretary Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Another versus Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Others

Reena Suresh Alhat versus State of Maharashtra & Another

Vivek Singh versus Romani Singh

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh versus M/S Stesalit Limited