Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwar Jaswant Rai And Others vs Ram Chander Sharma on 1 February, 2012
Author: M.M.S.Bedi
Bench: M.M.S.Bedi
C.R. No.2630 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2630 of 2011 (O&M).
Decided on: February 1, 2012.
Kanwar Jaswant Rai and others
.. Petitioners
VERSUS
Ram Chander Sharma
.. Respondent
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest
***
PRESENT Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Govind Goyal, Advocate,
Mr.Ankit Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction stands decreed by the trial Court. The defendants- petitioners has filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants-petitioners had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, to incorporate the plea in the written statement that as per the provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act, the agency having been created for consideration could not have been terminated by the plaintiff.
...1 C.R. No.2630 of 2011 (O&M) The lower appellate Court vide impugned order dated 10.3.2011, has dismissed the application for amendment of written statement observing that the amendment sought for in the written statement is not necessary for the determination of real controversy.
Counsel for the defendants-petitioners has vehemently contended that a legal plea regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act is required to be pleaded so that the defendants may be able to argue the law point before the lower appellate Court at the time of final arguments.
Counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the application for amendment has been filed by the defendants merely to delay the proceedings and that the legal plea regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act has already been taken up and rejected by the trial Court and that the defendants-petitioners will be at liberty to raise the said plea and to assail the findings of the trial Court as observed in para 45 of the trial Court judgment.
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and plaintiff-respondent. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, at this stage, lest it should prejudice the rights of any of the parties, it is deemed appropriate to observe that the legal plea which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment can always be raised at the ...2 C.R. No.2630 of 2011 (O&M) time of arguments by the defendants-petitioners before the lower appellate Court. Besides this it is settled principle of law of pleadings that the parties are required to plead the "facts" in the pleadings and not the "law". It is always open to the Court to consider the facts of a particular case in context to the statutory legal provisions. The defendants-petitioners will have a liberty to rely upon the provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act and satisfy the lower appellate Court that the facts and circumstances of the case would fall under the ambit of provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act.
Disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court on 4.2.2012 for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that a direction be given to the lower appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously. Said request can be made by any of the parties before the lower appellate Court in accordance with law. It is expected that such request will be acceded to by the lower appellate Court.
(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 1, 2012.
rka ...3