9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1746 - SC - Indian LawsDismissal of application for amendment of the plaint and for impleading another party - Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - HELD THAT - The Single Judge of the High Court while deciding the revision petition arising from the dismissal of the application also came to the conclusion that since the facts that were sought to be added by way of amending the plaint were within the knowledge of the plaintiff her application was hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC which prevents a party from amending the plaint post the commencement of the trial unless the Court concludes that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Notably the Single Judge did not provide any reason for rejecting the prayer for impleadment and proceeded to dismiss the entire application only by referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Undoubtedly in the present case the trial has commenced and the affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief of four witnesses for the plaintiff have been filed. However having regard to the fact that the two defendants and Pawan Kumar are close relatives it seems possible that the plaintiff may have been kept in the dark regarding the possession of the suit shop. We do not wish to comment on whether the defendants and Pawan Kumar colluded to actively withhold this information from the plaintiff. But the fact remains that the plaintiff did not know about the internal arrangement between the defendants and Pawan Kumar. Therefore even though the application for impleadment and amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff belatedly the interest of justice demands that the application be allowed to ensure that in the eventuality of the suit being decreed in his favour the plaintiff does not become vulnerable to another round of litigation at the stage of execution. We deem it fit however to impose costs of Rs. 10, 000 on the plaintiff. Conclusion - i) By virtue of actual possession being enjoyed by Pawan Kumar he is a necessary party to the present suit. ii) Despite the trial having commenced the interests of justice necessitated allowing the application for amendment and impleadment. The orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court rejecting the application for impleadment and amendment of the plaint set aside - application allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents The legal framework revolves around Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Order VI Rule 17 allows for the amendment of pleadings, but its proviso restricts amendments after the trial has commenced unless the party could not have raised the matter before the trial despite due diligence. Order I Rule 10 deals with the addition of parties to a suit. Court's interpretation and reasoning The Court interpreted the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 as requiring a demonstration of due diligence for amendments post-trial commencement. However, the Court found that the High Court failed to assess the merits of the application regarding the impleadment of Pawan Kumar, who was in possession of the suit shop and thus a necessary party. The Court noted that Pawan Kumar's possession was undisputed and that his absence as a party could lead to execution challenges if the decree favored the plaintiff. Key evidence and findings The Court found that Pawan Kumar was in possession of the suit shop, operating a business named 'Pawan Cloth House.' The relationship between the defendants and Pawan Kumar suggested potential collusion, as they were close relatives, which may have kept the plaintiff unaware of the possession dynamics. This lack of knowledge justified the delayed application for amendment and impleadment. Application of law to facts The Court applied the legal principles to determine that Pawan Kumar was a necessary party due to his possession of the suit shop. The potential for execution issues if Pawan Kumar was not a party justified allowing the amendment and impleadment, even though the application was filed post-trial commencement. The Court emphasized the need for justice and the avoidance of future litigation. Treatment of competing arguments The Court acknowledged the general rule against post-trial amendments but found that the interests of justice and the specific circumstances of the case warranted an exception. The Court balanced the procedural requirements with the substantive need to resolve all issues in the current suit. Conclusions The Court concluded that the application for amendment and impleadment should be allowed to prevent future litigation and ensure the effective execution of any decree in favor of the plaintiff. The Court imposed costs on the plaintiff for the delayed application but prioritized substantive justice over procedural technicalities. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
The core principles established include the necessity of including all parties with a substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit to avoid future litigation and ensure justice. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing procedural delays while safeguarding substantive rights. The final determination was to allow the appeal, set aside the lower courts' orders, and direct the Trial Court to proceed on merits, uninfluenced by the present observations.
|
