Allahabad High Court
Dr. Vishwanath Mehrotra & Others vs High Court Of Judicature & Others on 3 August, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
[Reserved]
Civil Revision No. 83 of 1996
Dr. Vishwanath Mehrotra & Others ........Defendant-Appellant
Vs.
High Court of Judicature and others ..........Plaintiff-Respondents
**************
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
This Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC has come up for consideration before me by the nomination made by the Senior Judge.
I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist and Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the contesting plaintiff respondent.
The High Court Allahabad through District Judge, Etawah as plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 136 of 1991 in the court of Civil Judge, Etawah against the 4 defendants, the 4th defendant-State of U.P. through Collector being the proforma respondent) for eviction of defendants no. 1 to 3 from the land shown and described in the plaint and for possession thereof with a further relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 to 3 from interfering in its possession, use and occupation over the same.
In the suit a comprehensive common written statement was filed on behalf of all the three contesting defendants. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed:-
"¼,d½ D;k oknh okn i= ds dFkukuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe dk Lokeh v/;klh gSA ¼nks½ D;k izfroknhx.k us okn i= ds izLrj&12 esa n'kkZ;h Hkwfe ij vukf/kdkj dCtk dj fy;k gS] izHkkoA ¼rhu½ D;k izfroknhx.k uhyke vFkok izfrdwy dCts ls futkbZ ds Lokeh gSaA 2 ¼pkj½ D;k bl U;k;ky; dks Jo.k vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA ¼ikap½ D;k okn dk ewY;kadu oS/kkfud :i ls u djrs gq, mfpr U;k;&'kqYd ugha fn;k x;k gSA ¼N½ D;k oknh feV~Vh mBkus dh {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa 5000@&:i;s gtsZ dk vf/kdkjh gSA ¼lkr½ oknh fdlh vuqrks"k ds vf/kdkjh gSaA"
In the aforesaid suit the defendants no. 1 to 3 moved application paper no. 169 A for amendment of the written statement for adding paragraphs 16aa, 16ba, 16sa, 16da and 16ya after paragraph 16 of the written statement and before paragraph 17 to the effect that the land in dispute of gata no. 98 is an agricultural land and had always remained recorded in the name of the defendants as agricultural land and that High Court is not a juristic person and as such has no authority to institute a suit through the District Judge.
The proposed amendments to the written statement are as under:-
"16v& ;g fd Hkwfe la[;k 98@1 o 98@2 dqy 11-29 Mslhey jktLo izys[k esa lnSo vkSj izkjEHk ls gh xSj n[khydkjh] n[khydkjh vkSj vc rd fujUrj dk'rdkjh dh Hkwfe mRrj nkrk izfroknh o muds iwoZt Mk0 fo'kEHkj ukFk ds uke vafdr pyh vkrs gS ftlds tehnkj jkT; ljdkj vafdr gS vkSj bl izdkj ls mRrj izn's k VsusUlh ,DV ds lHkh izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs gS rFkk oknh }kjk okn Hkh blh Hkwfe la[;k 98 ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mRrj nkrk izfroknh dks bl Hkwfe la[;k 98 ds LokfeRo ls laca/k gS ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa Hkh vkSj lHkh rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr djrs gq, U;k;ky; dks okn ds Jo.k dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA d`"kd Hkwfe gS vkSj blh d`"kd Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k fd;s x;s gS dFku oknh fo:) blds lgh ugha gSA 16c& ;g fd Hkwfe la[;k 98 lnSo ls dk'rdkjh dh Hkwfe jgh gS fd ftldk yxku 3 mRrjnkrk izfroknhx.k o muds iwoZt vnk djrs jgs gS vkSj jktLo vfHkys[k esa Hkh yxku vafdr jgk gS rFkk n[khydkj dk'rdkj ds :i esa yxku vafdr gksus laca/kh dk;Zokgh jktLo U;k;ky; esa yafcr gksdj yxku dh izfof"V djus laca/kh vkns'k Hkh vafre :i ls gqvk gS rFkk mRrj izn's k jkT; }kjk bu jktLo izy[s k esa yxku dh izfof"V ds laca/k esa vkifRr izLrqr dh x;h gS rFkk mRrjnkrk izfroknh ds fo:) ifCyd ijfell ,DV ds varxZr dk;Zokgh dh x;h fd tks dqy dk;Zokgh yxku izfof"V rFkk ifCyd ijfell ,DV dh mRrjnkrk izfroknh x.k ds fgr esa vafre :i ls fu.khZr gq;h oknh dks blds fo:) vc vkifRr djus dk dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkjh izkIr ugha gS bl vk/kkj ij Hkh okn izkM+ U;k; ¼jsltqMhdsVk½ ds fl)kUr ls okf/kr gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks okn Jo.k dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS vkSj okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 16l& ;g fd mPp U;k;ky; Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds varxZr Hkh twfjfLVd ilZu ugha gS vkSj mPp U;k;ky; dks okn izLrqr djus vFkok mPp U;k;ky; dks tuin U;k;k/kh'k ds ek/;e ls ;k tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks vf/kd`r djrs gq;s okn izLrqr djus] lR;kfir djus dk ;k fd mPp U;;ky; dks bl izdkj dk okn izLrqr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS bl vk/kkj ij Hkh okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 16n& ;g fd mPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;ky; flfoy tt] bVkok esa okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd tksfd mPp U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk U;k;ky; gS vkSj okn tuin U;k;k/kh'k ds ek/;e ls izLrqr fd;k x;k ftuds lh/ks izR;{k ekrgr flfoy tt U;k;ky; gS ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa Hkh flfoy tt] bVkok dks okn Jo.k dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA 16;& ;g fd fookfnr Hkwfe la[;k 98 jktLo izy[s k esa ekfydku ljdkj cgknqj] dk'rdkjku] n[khydkj cgSfl;r n[khydkj dk'rdkjku vklkfe;ku feyfd;r ljdkjh utwy Hkwfe dks NksMd + j vU; ljdkjh LFkkuksa ds n[khydkj] dk'rdkj mRrjnkrk izfroknhx.k o muds iwoZt vkSj iwoZxkeh fujUr vafdr py vkrs gS fd ftlesa jkT; ljdkj dks vkifRr ugha jgh vkSj jkT; ljdkj izfroknh uEcj&4 dks 4 i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS bl vk/kkj ij Hkh oknh dks okn izLrqr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA"
The said amendment application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection 171'C' on the allegation that the amendment proposed is not factual but legal in nature and moreover the said facts are already part of the pleadings of the defendants and as such need not further be incorporated in the written statement.
The Court of first instance vide order dated 1.2.1996 rejected the amendment application holding that the proposed amendments are already part of the written statement and on the basis of such pleadings issue no. 4 has already been framed and therefore no further amendment in this regard is required.
Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel after taking me through the written statement and the amendment application contended that the trial of the suit has not commenced and the amendments proposed are purely of a legal nature and therefore ought to have been allowed. Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh defending the impugned order in reply submitted that there is no necessity of incorporating such amendments as the pleadings to the same effect are already contained in the written statement. There is no jurisdictional error in the order impugned.
The amendment to the pleadings is permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which provides that the pleadings can be altered or amended at any stage of the proceedings if they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, there is a rider that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court come to the conclusion that such pleading could not be raised earlier despite due 5 diligence. In other words, amendment in pleadings is permissible at any stage if it is necessary for deciding the real controversy in issue and further if the parties seeking amendment satisfies the Court that amendment sought could not be pleaded earlier for cogent reasons despite all care taken in that regard.
Admittedly, in the present case the trial of the suit had not commenced and therefore the Court was only required to consider as to whether the amendments so sought in the written statement were necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The impugned order no where records that the proposed amendments to the written statement were not necessary for deciding the various issues arising in the suit. It simply records that as the pleadings with regard to the proposed amendments are already contained in paragraphs 16, 24 to 29 of the written statement. There is no necessity for any further amendment specially in view of the issue no.
4. A careful consideration of paragraphs 16,24 to 29 of the written statement reveals that it does not contain any pleading as are proposed to be added by amendment in the written statement. The aforesaid paragraphs of the written statement are only to the effect that the civil court has no jurisdiction to declare the ownership of the parties over the land in dispute; the manner in which the suit property had fallen to the ownership and possession of the defendants and that the suit is barred by principles of constructive res-judicata in view of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 333 of 1931 Bansh Gopal, defendant Vs. Siraj Ahmad which was also in respect of the same land.
For the sake of convenience, paragraphs no. 16, 24 to 29 of the 6 written statement are reproduced herein below:-
"16- ;g fd blh leLrcSukeks ds }kjk Ø; dh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa okn la[;k 103 lu 1931 eqaflQh bVkok vjoqy fulk cuke fljkt vgen [kkW vkfn pyk fd tks fMxzh gqvk ftldks btjk; la[;k 201 lu 32 esa ;g Ø; dh gqbZ :okfeRo o dCts dh lEifRr en;wu fMxzh fd;k fd tks mUgksaus mijksDr cSukes ls [kjhn dh Fkh dk 'ks"k fuLQ fgLlk iqu% uhyke gqvk fd ftl uhyke esa izfroknhx.k ds firk Mk0 fo'kEHkj ukFk esgjks=k dh lcls vf/kd cksyh jgh vkSj tks uhyke fof/kor U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj gksdj mlds laca/k esa Mk0 fo'kEHkj ukFk esgjks=k firk izfroknhx.k ds uke lkVhZfQdsV uhyke rS;kj gqvk vkSj mUgksus bl fuLQ Hkkx ij fof/kor U;k;ky; vehu }kjk fnukad 16-11-33 dks n[ky izkIr fd;k vkSj bl izdkj ls bl izdkj ls dqy fookfnr lEifRr esa tks xkVk la[;k 98 dqy;ru jdch 11-29 ,dM+ dks nks n[kyukeks ds tfj;s fuLQ fuLQ Hkkx ds ekfyd dkfct Mk0 fo'kEHkj ukFk esgjks=k gq,A ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd bu leLr rF;ksa dk o izy[s kksa dk euu u djrs gq, mudh vksj iw.kZ /;ku u fnykrs gq, njxqtj djds okn izLrqr djk;k x;k gSA 24& ;g fd izLrkfor 10 U;k;ky; d{k ds fuekZ.k ds le; Hkh oknh ds rRdkyhu vf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls leLr rF; j[ks x;s Fks vkSj izfroknhx.k dks bl izdkj dh [kqyh Hkwfe ij oknh }kjk fuekZ.k o dCtk dk Hkh ?kksj fojks/k fd;k vr% rRdkfyd vf/kdkfj;ksa us leLr rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k izfroknhx.k ds leLr izy[s k ns[ks fopkj foe'kZ fd;k rFkk gj nks ckn 103 lu 31 o 333 lu 1931 o muls lacaf/kr btjk; la[;k 192 lu 32 o 201 lu 32 lacaf/kr leLr dk;Zokgh uhyke n[ky ukek vkfn dk iw.kZ voyksdu fd;k vkSj LFky dh fLFkr dk iw.kZ fujh{k.k djds izfroknh dh uEcj 98 dks mijksDr of.kZr mRrjh o if'peh esM vkSj mijksDr cf.kZr ucjku ds mijksDr esM yksgs ds rkj o [kEHkksa dk gh iqjkus iwoZor LFky ij gksuk rFkk tqt mRrjh esM fd tks uacj 100 dks vygnk djrh gS rFkk tks 7 iqjkus fuekZ.k nhoky cuh Fkh vkSj vc Hkh cuh gS mu lcls lUrq"V gksdj U;k;ky; d{k ds fuekZ.k LFky o vkokl ds fy;s fuekZ.k fd;s tkus ds LFkku dk fopkj djrs gq, mlesa ifjorZu djds leLr vk[;k vkfn ds lkFk mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa mPp U;k;ky; esa Hksth fd tks leLr i= O;ogkj izys[k o i=koyh tth U;k;ky; esa vko';d :i ls miyC/k gksuk pkfg;s ijUrq ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd oknh dks Hkze esa Mkyus ds fy, mu rF;ksa dh vksj mudk iw.kZ euu u djrs gq, vlR; rF;ksa ij fu"ks/kkKk izpfyr djkus dk iz;kl fd;k gSA 25& ;g fd uacj 98 ds tqt fgLlk tks uacj 99 ls if'pe vksj yxk gqvk gS ml tqt uacj o 99 ds mRrj vksj jkLrk 92 lnSo ls dk;e gS fd ftl jkLrs ls vkus tkus ds fy, lM+d vke tks uacj 98 ls tkfuo if'pe iqfyl v/kh{kd ds caxyk ls iwoZ esa gS lnSl ls njoktk dk;e jgk gS vkSj mlds nks [kEHks lnSo ls fufeZr jgs gS vkSj jkLrs dks Lohdkj djrs gq, LFky dh fLFkr ds vuqlkj tc uacj 99 ds mRrj vksj lM+d ds fdukjs oknh dh vksj ls nhoky fufeZr dh x;h rks mu [kEHkks ds LFkku ij ckdk;nk [kEHks o jkLrk NksM+s x;s gS ijUrq vc HkzekRed :i ls LFky dks ifjorZu djkus ds dkj.k mlesa ifjorZu djds oknh dh vksj ls uacj 92 jkLrs dks Hkh viuh LokfeRo dks Hkwfe dgus dk vcS/kkfud dqiz;kl dj jgk gSA 26& ;g fd blh iwoZ dh fLFkr ij fopkj djrs gq, orZeku dky esa Hkh 98 uacj izfroknhx.k dk Lohdkj djrs gq, mlh ds vuqlkj oknh dh vksj ls 99 o 100 uacj esa fuekZ.k o ckmUMªh oky djok;s x;s gS vkSj LFky ij ftl LFkku ij feutqeyk 98 o 99 dh [kqyh Hkwfe Fkh vkSj tquu vc Hkh mldk vygnxh LFky ij ugha gS] ;fn HkzekRed :i ls lgh fLFkr ij fopkj u djrs gq, oknh dh vksj ls dksbZ fuekZ.k gq, gS mldk Hkh dksbZ vuqfpr ykHk oknh ugha mBk ldrk gSA 27& ;g fd ftl izdkj dh fu"ks/kkKk oknh izkIr djuk pkgrk gS ml izdkj dh fu"ks/kkKk izpfyr ugha dh tk ldrh gS vkSj fu"ks/kkKk izpfyr djus dk vFkZ izfroknhx.k dks vius LokfeRo vkSj vf/kdkjksa ls oafpr djuk gksxk rFkk tks Hkh 8 dk;Zokgh esM+ cUnh dh pyh gS fd tks dfe'ujh o cksMZ vkQ jsoU;w rd fu.khZr gqbZ gS ml leLr vkns'k dks LFkkfxr djkuk gksxk fd ftlls izfroknhx.k dh egku gkfu o v'kks/kuh; {kfr gksxh vkSj oknh dk vly ea'kk ml esM canh dh dk;Zokgh dks iw.kZ u gksus nsus] mlesa :dkoV Mkyus vkSj LFky ij <qfg;k u yxus ik;s rFkk oknh 'kuS% 'kuS% izfroknhx.k ds LokfeRo o dCts dh Hkwfe ij dCtk dj ys blh dkj.k okn izLrqr djds fu"ks/kkKk izpfyr djkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA 28& ;g fd 'kklu ls Hkh izfroknhx.k dk bl laca/k esa fookn gqvk vkSj 'kklu Hkh bl fu"d"kZ ij vk;k fd fookfnr Hkwfe 98 uacj izfroknhx.k o mlds iwoZxkeh ds LokfeRo o dCts dh Hkwfe gS bldk dksbZ Hkkx u utwy jgk vkSj u gS u 'kklu }kjk bldks fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vUrj.k oknh ;k ftyk tth dks fd;k x;k u oknh vFkok ftyk tt ds vf/kiR; fu;a=.k ;k iz;ksx esa dHkh jghA oknh us rR; Li"V muds le{k u j[kus ds dkj.k vkSj HkzekRed fLFkr iSnk djds vdkj.k fQj Hkh utwy dh Hkwfe dgus dk iz;kl fd;k tks rF;ksa ds foijhr gSA 29& ;g fd dfri; dkj.k c'k 'kklu ds dfri; vax izfroknhx.k ds fo:) gks x;s fd ftl O;fDrxr jaft'k dks fuHkkus ds fy, mu yksxksa us jktdh; izys[kksa esa gsj Qsj djds izfof"V;ksa esa ifjorZu djkus dk iz;kl fd;k okLro esa xkVk la[;k 98 ;k mldk dksbZ Hkkx u rks vQhe dksBh jgh vkSj u vQhe dksBh ds uke ls tkuh tkrh jgh vkSj u 'kklu dks vFkok ml foHkkx ds fdlh vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dk dk;kZy; ;k vkokl gh mlesa jgk cfYd ;g leLr lEifRr O;fDrxr lEifRr jgh fd ftldk vUrj.k gksrs gq, vafre :i ls vc izfroknhx.k gh mlds ekfyd dkfct n[khy gS vkSj oknh bl izdkj ds voS/kkfud vukf/kd`r izfof"V;ksa dk vuqfpr ykHk ugh mBk ldrk gSA"
A careful consideration of the above paragraphs of the written statement reveals that the pleading to the effect that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and that it continues to be recorded as such in the 9 name of the defendants as well and that the suit by the High Court through District Judge is not maintainable are completely absent from the written statement. The issue no 4 also does not cover the additional plea/defence sought to be raised to the effect that the suit as instituted in the name of High Court through District Judge is not maintainable. The issue of jurisdiction is meaningless in the absence of pleading that the land is of agricultural nature. Therefore, the entire premise on which the amendment application has been rejected does not exist and that being the only ground for rejecting of the amendment application, the impugned order can not be sustained in law.
The Apex Court has time and again ruled that Court should be liberal in allowing amendment in the written statement. In Baldev and others Vs. Manohar Singh and others JT 2006 (7) SC 139 a distinction between amendment of plaint and written statement was highlighted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and it was observed that the Courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing the amendment of the written statement and the parameters governing the amendment of written statement are quite different from those governing the amendments to the plaint. Another important aspect in dealing with the amendment of written statement which is necessary to be kept in mind is that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and to permit the defendants to raise all pleas in their defence in the same suit. The plea with regard to jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the land is of agricultural nature and the maintainability of the suit in the name of the High Court or in the name as filed are both legal pleas which clearly appear to be necessary for the adjudication of the controversy involved between the parties in the suit. 10
In Andhra Bank Vs. A.B.N. Amro Bank N.V., and others 2007 JT (9) SC 244 the Supreme Court while considering the matter of amendment of a written statement held that delay in moving the amendment application is no ground to refuse the same and if through the proposed amendment only additional grounds of defence are being raised, it ought to be permitted. The above authority squarely covers the controversy at hand and I am of the opinion that the court below should have permitted both the additional pleas to be adduced by way of amendment in the written statement.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the court below manifestly erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing the amendment. Accordingly, this civil revision is allowed the impugned order dated 1.2.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) in O.S. No. 136 of 1991 rejecting the amendment application (paper no.169 A) is hereby set aside. The amendment application stands allowed. The defendants are permitted to carry out the amendment in the written statement within a period of six weeks from today. The court of first instance is directed to proceed with the suit on merits and to decide the same most expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
The record of the lower court be sent back by the office immediately.
Revision is allowed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
SKS August 3, 2010.