Delhi High Court
Trade Connection vs International Building Products (P) ... on 8 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002IIIAD(DELHI)344, 96(2002)DLT214, 2002(61)DRJ833
Author: R.C. Jain
Bench: R.C. Jain
JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 26-07-2001 by which the prayer of the petitioner-defendant to amend its written statement has been partly declined.
2. The petitioner is facing a suit for recovery or Rs. 4,99,000/- filed by the respondent-plaintiff and filed its written statement. Thereafter the respondent has filed its replication. The petitioner made an application praying for amendment of the written statement and wanted to raise preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to entertain and try the suit in question besides seeking other amendments. Vide the impugned order the learned trial court has partly allowed the application of the petitioner and permitted him to amend the written statement so as to incorporation preliminary objections 1 and 3 in regard to the suit having not been filed by a duly authorised person and the plaintiff having no right to claim interest from the defendant. Trial Court has also allowed the petitioner to incorporate para 5(a) as a further plea in the written statement. The trial court, however, declined to allow the petitioner to raise preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction mainly on the premise that such an objection was not raised by the petitioner at the earliest stage or in the written statement and thereby it has acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Court and could not be permitted to turn around and take an inconsistent plea. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the matter is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically urged that the trial court was not justified in declining the permission to raise the objection with regard to jurisdiction because such a plea is basically a legal plea and the suit is still at its preliminary stage i.e. issue have yet to be framed. He emphasized that the approach of the Court has to be liberal while considering an application for amendment of pleadings as has been held in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. As against this the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner being in know of the entire facts has not made a whisper about the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court in its written statement and has quitely submitted to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court though contesting the suit on various grounds, cannot be allowed to raise any objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forward on behalf of the parties. There is no denial of the legal position that the power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice based on the guide-lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts and that the Court has to adopt a liberal approach while dealing with such applications but at the same time it is also well settled that a party cannot be allowed to withdraw the admissions of facts made by it in its pleadings by making amendment to the pleadings. In the case in hand it would be noticed the plaintiff in para 10 of the plaint had categorically averred as under:-
"10. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit as the cause of action arose at Delhi, the defendant No. 1 was appointed as a dealer in Delhi, material was supplied at ex Delhi prices, the part payments had been made by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs at Delhi. As such this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the suit."
5. The petitioner-defendant in its written statement has not even vaguely denied the contents of the said paragraph of the plaint. The written statement deals paragraphs up to serial No. 7 of the plaint and does not deal with any further paragraphs. This would clearly show that the petitioner-defendant had in unequivocal terms admitted the facts averred in paragraph 10 of the plaint which categorically state that the cause of action for the suit has arisen at Delhi and the Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try this suit. On the face of this position permitting the petitioner to raise an objection about the territorial jurisdiction would clearly amount to withdrawal of admission of facts made by the petitioner-defendant in its written statement, such a course is not legally permissible.
6. It was next urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of provisions contained under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 CPC the prayer for amendment cannot be said to be a belated one because the issues are yet to be framed in the case. It is true that the suit is still at a preliminary stage and issues are yet to be framed in the case but that by itself is not sufficient to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement so as to incorporate the said plea with regard to the jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the plea that the trial court has though allowed the petitioner to incorporate the pleas raised in paragraph 5(a) of the written statement, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to raise the objection with regard to jurisdiction. I, however, see no merit in this contention also.
8. Having considered the matter this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court was justified in declining permission to the petitioner to raise the objection/plea with regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction once such a plea was not raised at the earliest stage and the petitioner-defendant having not disputed the same on any ground in the written statement and having submitted to the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.