Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sri. M.N. Sundar Raj vs Sri. B. Ramachandra Nayak on 13 March, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh
CA No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20661 of 2014
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVA
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. 20661/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/03/2014
in WP No. 45617/2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore)
SRI. M.N. SUNDAR RAJ Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SRI. B. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date : 13/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, A.O.R.
Mr. Krutin R. Joshi, adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, A.O.R.
Mr. Sandeep Maktala, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent.
The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms.
[NEETA] [KALYANI GUPTA] Signature Not Verified SR.P.A. COURT MASTER Digitally signed by Kalyani Gupta Date: 2015.03.18 18:08:05 IST Reason: [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] PAGE NO. 1 OF 3 CA No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20661 of 2014 PAGE NO. 2 OF 3 CA No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20661 of 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 20661 OF 2014] SRI M.N. SUNDAR RAJ ….. APPELLANT VERSUS SRI B. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK ….. RESPONDENT O R D E R Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well the counsel for the respondent.
3. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order of the trial Court by which the appellant's application under Order VI Rule 17 to raise a plea of declaration of title of Suit 'A” scheduled property and that he is in lawful possession of the same by an amendment of the plaint came to be allowed. The High Court set aside the said order by observing that such amendment would be hit by the Law of Limitation as the application for amendment came to be filed after a long lapse of eight years particularly when the ownership of PAGE NO. 1 OF 3 CA No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20661 of 2014 the same was denied by the respondent as far back as in the year 2005.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that apart from the question of limitation if the said amendment is permitted to be made it will also attract the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court.
5. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the amendment ordered by the trial court for adding the prayer of declaration that the appellant is the absolute owner of the scheduled property and is in possession of the same, as from the date of the order of amendment should be allowed to remain.
6. As far as the grievance of the respondent is concerned, the respondent can always raise all substantive plea available to the respondent by way of filing an additional written statement to the amended prayer and if need be can also lay any necessary evidence in support of the stand on the question of limitation as well as the question of jurisdiction as well as title. Since while ordering notice, the appellant gave an undertaking that he will go by whatever evidence that is already available on record PAGE NO. 2 OF 3 CA No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20661 of 2014 and will not seek for producing any further evidence even if the amendment is to be allowed, the said undertaking shall continue to remain and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial after permitting the respondent to file necessarily additional written statement within two weeks and if so prayed for by the respondent, the trial Court shall also permit the respondent to let in evidence in support of the amended plea and we only direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored.
7. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms.
…...................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] …...................................J [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] NEW DELHI MARCH 13, 2015.
PAGE NO. 3 OF 3