Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raj Kumari Jain vs Nirmal Jain . on 29 April, 2014
r"ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).128/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 26/07/2012 in CM No.892/2011
of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)
RAJ KUMARI JAIN & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NIRMAL JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay and prayer for interim relief and office
report )
Date: 29/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Neeta) (Usha Sharma)
Sr.P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5509 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 128 of 2013) RAJ KUMARI JAIN & ANR Appellant(s) VERSUS NIRMAL JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 892 of 2011 with CM No. 14397 of 2011(stay). By the impugned order, the High Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India set aside the order dated 14th May, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Central whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendments in the grounds of appeal, was dismissed and allowed the prayer for amendment of the ground.
The appellant has challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds, firstly, that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not competent to allow the petition for amendment and secondly, that the petition for amendment of grounds was filed in appeal taking new grounds without seeking appropriate amendment to the pleadings and the prayer made in the suit.
On notice LRs. of original plaintiff-respondents appeared but nobody appeared on their behalf to oppose the prayer made by the appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 10 and 11 supported the case of the appellant and contended that High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On going through the records, we agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and allowing the petition for amendment in the grounds of appeal. The impugned order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 892 of 2011 with CM No. 14397 of 2011(stay) is set aside.
The appeal is allowed.
.............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) ...........................J. (RANJAN GOGOI) NEW DELHI;
APRIL 29, 2014