Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company ... vs L.I.C Of India Th Divisional ... on 26 February, 2014
.,
ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVI
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).38996/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 13/09/2012 in CWJC No.11029/2009 of
The HIGH COURT OF PATNA)
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
L.I.C OF INDIA TH DIVISIONAL MANAG.PATNA Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report )
Date: 26/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv.
Mr. P. Ramesh, Adv.
Mr. M.P. Pattbiban, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,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.
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2898 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.38996 of 2012) |GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED |Appellant(s) | Versus |LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS |Respondent(s) | |DIVISIIONAL MANAGER, PATNA AND OTHERS | | O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
The impugned order arises out of the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein questioning the maintainability of the order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the Subordinate Judge-III, Patna in Title Suit No. 421 of 2007 wherein amendment petition dated 16.7.2008 filed by the appellant herein has been allowed permitting it to question the proceedings taken by the respondents and its Divisional Manager before the Estate Officer for eviction of the appellant from the public premises leased out by the respondent by Lease Deed dated 24.4.2007 in favour of the appellant for five years commencing from 8.11.2004. A notice was served upon the appellant on 6.8.2007 determining the lease and asking the appellant to vacate the premises.
The plea taken by the respondent was that the premises are required for its use immediately. The Estate Officer of the respondent issued a notice to the appellant. The appellant had filed a suit on 6.8.2007. After receiving the notice from the Estate Officer, an application was filed for making certain amendments in the plaint. This prayer was allowed by the Trial Court. The respondents challenged the order of the Trial Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11029 of 2009 challenging the order permitting the petitioners to carry out the amendments in the plaint. The Writ Petition has been allowed and the order permitting the amendment of the plaint dated 26.6.2009 has been set aside.
We are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the High Court clearly suffers from an error of jurisdiction. The only issue which was raised before the High Court was as to whether the order dated 26.6.2009 permitting the amendment of the plaint was correct. The issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred was not to be decided in the proceedings which related only to the amendment of the plaint. However, the High Court unnecessarily adverted to the objection taken by the respondents and without any justification made adverse comments against the Trial Court Judge which had allowed the application for amendment.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable in law.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The adverse comments and the directions issued against the Trial Court Judge are specifically expunged.
Before parting with this judgment, we deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the civil suit as expeditiously as possible in view of the preliminary objections taken by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the suit.
.......................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) .......................J. (A.K. SIKRI) New Delhi, February 26, 2014