Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Navaneetham vs D. Manohar on 18 December, 2024
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14888 OF 2024
(@ S.L.P. (C) No. 22676/2019)
NAVANEETHAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
D. MANOHAR Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 11.06.2019 in CRPPD No. 1404/2018 by which the civil revision application filed by the respondent herein (original plaintiff) came to be allowed, and thereby the court permitted the plaintiff to amend his plaint.
3. We have heard Mr. C. B. Gururaj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original defendant) and Mr. Jamesh P. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (original plaintiff).
4. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 430/2006 in the Court of District Munsif at Alandur praying for grant of permanent injunction Signature Not Verified restraining the defendant from interfering into the plaintiff’s Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2024.12.23 12:51:59 IST peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Reason:
Later the plaintiff preferred an application seeking to amend the plaint. 2
5. The plaintiff prayed that he may be permitted to add relief seeking declaration that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule Plot No. 49, forming part of Survey Nos. 341/1, 342/2 respectively, new survey No. 341/1A2 situated in Pallikaranai Village, Varadhapuram admeasuring 1260 sq.ft. The plaintiff also prayed for a mandatory injunction to demolish and remove the structure and compound wall constructed by the defendant on the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for delivery of possession of schedule property after demolition of the compound wall and the structure.
6. The application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint was opposed by the defendant herein. The trial court after hearing both the sides thought fit to reject the application.
7. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court declining him to amend the plaint preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and thereby permitted the plaintiff to amend his plaint.
8. The High Court while allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff observed in paras 6 and 7 respectively as under:-
“6. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner filed the suit before the learned District Munsif, Alandur in O.S.No.436 of 2006 for permanent injunction and after filing of the written statement by the defendants, the petitioner filed the application in I.A.No.12 of 2008 for mandatory injunction based on the averments made in the written statement and the same was dismissed by the learned District Munsiff, Alandur. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed the revision before this Court in CRP (PD) No.3764 of 2009 and same was allowed by this Court on 13.07.2011. Before carrying out the amendment of prayer in the plaint 3 in respect of the revision petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1901 of 2013 for amending the plaint, declaration of title and recovery of possession. The learned District Munsif returned the application and suit to re- present before the competent Court which has got jurisdiction. The revision petitioner presented the suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram and the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.199 of 2013 and the application in I.A.No.1901 of 2011 was kept pending without assigning any new number to the said application. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was under
the impression that the said application was misplaced and hence, he has filed a fresh application in I.A.No.1012 of 2013. Therefore, the non-mentioning of the application in I.A.No.1901 of 2011 in the impugned order is not fatal to the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise, there was no specific order passed on merits. Therefore, the observation made in the impugned order by the learned Subordinate Judge warrants interference. As far as the Limitation is concerned, the suit was filed in the year of 2006 and the written statement was filed in the year 2007. In this case, the amendment was sought for by the petitioner in the year 2011. Further, the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and facts whether the relief sought for in the petition is barred by limitation or not can be decided after recording evidence during the trial. The question as to whether the respondent has got title over the suit property or not can be decided only in the main suit after trial but, not at this stage. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tambaram warrants interference.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 02.01.2018 made in I.A.No.1012 of 2013 in O.S.No.199 of 2013 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tambaram is set aside. The petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary amendment. After filing of the amended copy of the plaint, the trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the respondent/defendant to file the additional written statement, if any. Thereafter, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case on merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, 4 connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.”
9. In such circumstances, the appellant (original defendant) is here before this Court with the present appeal.
10. The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original defendant) is that the amended prayer of declaration is time barred. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court in its true perspective while permitting the plaintiff to amend his plaint.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (original defendant) submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order.
12. We take notice of the fact that the High Court while permitting the plaintiff to amend his plaint, has touched the issue of limitation and has also gone into other issues related to the same.
13. The High Court has observed and very rightly that the issue of limitation ordinarily being one of a mixed question of law and facts can be gone into at the stage of trial.
14. Way back in 2009, this Court in a decision titled M/S. Revajeetu Builders And Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy And Sons & Ors. reported in (2009 10 SSC 84) laid down some basic principles that the Court should keep in mind while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. Para 63 of the judgment reads thus:-
“63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken 5 into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment.
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide?
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.”
16. In the over all view of the matter, we have reached the conclusion that we should not disturb the order of the High Court and leave all issues open, including the issue of limitation to be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties oral as well as documentary.
17. With the aforesaid, this Appeal stands disposed of.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
...................J. (J.B. PARDIWALA) ...................J. (R. MAHADEVAN) New Delhi December 18, 2024 cd 6 ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.14 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22676/2019 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-06-2019 in CRPPD No. 1404/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras] NAVANEETHAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS D. MANOHAR Respondent(s) Date : 18-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv.
Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
Mr. Naveen C Adv.
Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv.
Mrs. Mary Scaria, Adv.
Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)