Delhi High Court
Kedar Nath vs Ram Prakash on 7 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 67(1997)DLT106
JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.
1. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the order of the Rent Control Tribunal primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) that the Tribunal could not have entertained entirely new written statement in response to limited amendment allowed of the petition. Tribunal while allowing entirely new written statement relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mehta Devinder Singh v. Haranam Singh, 1976, RLR (Notes 39). The decision of Mehta Devinder Singh (supra) has impliedly been dissented by subsequent decisions of this Court namely of Jaimal Singh v. Smt. Chanan Devi, 1985 (1) RCR page 155 and Rukhsana Sultana v. Mohinder Kaur, 1983 RLR 776. S. Gill, J. while deciding the case of Mehta Devinder Singh held that on allowing an application for amendment of plaint, defendant has a right to file an entirely new written statement unless the order specifies a restriction. In arriving at this conclusion F.S. Gill, J. relied on the Single Bench (Dua, J.) decision of the Punjab High Court in the Case of New Bank v. Raj Rani, . Single Bench of Punjab in fact had relied on the Division Bench judgment of that Court. This Court in the case of Rukhsana Sultana (supra) disagreed with the interpretation given by Dua, J. in the case of New Bank (supra) and observed that the laws of procedure are devised to advance justice and further its ends. Procedural laws are also laws and are enacted to be obeyed and implemented. The main purpose and object of enacting procedural laws is to ensure that justice is done to the parties and held that non compliance with a provision like Rule 7 of Order 6 may, in many a case, lead to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, relying on the observations of Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Patna High Court, J.D. Jain, J. observed that defendant when required to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint does not get an unfettered right to take up any plea he chooses and a departure in the subsequent pleadings cannot be permitted in violation of the prohibition contained in Order 6 Rule 7. He, however, found it difficult to go further and subscribe to the view that the additional written statement to be filed to the amended plaint must confine to the amendments made in the plaint i.e., the defendant can have his say only with respect to the matter introduced by amendment and no further. This Court in the case of Jaimal Singh, however, took the view that the defendant can file the written statement to the amended portion only to the amendment made in the plaint and nothing further. Departure from the pleadings is not permissible without leave of the Court. According to Sultan Singh, J. Order 6 of the Code deals generally with the pleadings of both the plaintiff and defendant and the legislative mandate is applicable both to the plaint and the written statement. It was found that what has been stated once as the allegation of fact or as a ground of a claim or an attack has got to be stuck to by the parties and any change in that stand can be taken note of by the Court only by way of amendment which is permissible only under the established principles of law.
2. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is conflict of judicial opinion as far as Delhi High Court is concerned. The conflict has arisen when order was passed by F.S. Gill, J. in IA. No. 2574/75 in Suit No. 509/72 and reported in 1976 RLR Note 39. F.S. Gill, J. relying on the Dua, J's decision while sitting singly in 1966 Punjab 162 opined that new written statement can be filed when there is an amendment into the plaint. As against this Sultan Singh, J. and J.D. Jain., as pointed out above, have taken completely contrary view. Sultan Singh, J. has gone a step further than what J.D. Jain, J. has stated. Keeping in view the conflicting views on the point of this High Court an authoritative decision on this point has to be there. Since there is a conflict of judicial opinion, it is desirable that the matter should be settled by a Division Bench.
3. It would not be out of place to mention that a similar reference is already pending which was referred it in Suit No. 2092/89 on 5th August, 1994. But no decision as yet has been rendered. It is in this background papers are ordered to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring this matter to the Division Bench. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant contends that as this matter is pending since 1979, it may be heard at an early date.