Delhi High Court
Chand Krishan Bhalla vs Surinder Singh on 26 July, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1984(7)DRJ189
JUDGMENT Sultan Singh, J.
(1) It has been observed again and again by the Supreme Court that the court should be liberal in allowing application for leave to amend the pleadings in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, following observation has been made : "RULES of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake negligence, inadvertance of even infraction of the rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied, that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not ' be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendments, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side."
(2) M/S. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, following observation has been made : "PROCEDURAL law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in Civil cases agreement to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take."
(3) In Panchdeo Narain Srivastava, , the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to withdraw a certain amount deposited by the second defendant in the court. The plaintiff had described himself as the son of uterine brother of Ram Shanker Prasad subsequently the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint seeking deletion of the word "Uterine" from the plaint. The trial court allowed the amendment. The High Court reversed the order of the trial court and dismissed the application for leave to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court observed that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away and therefore it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. In Chetanlal Jain (supra), this Supreme Court authority the latest pronouncement was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. The trial court in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court was not bound to follow the judgment of this court. On a careful reading of the Supreme Court judgment I am of the opinion that if by inadvertance alleged admission has been made in the pleadings and the explanation is given by the party concerned he can be allowed to amend the pleadings.
(4) In the present case I am satisfied that the allegation in para 2 of the plaint was made without verifying from the records of the Custodian office. If the defendant was not inducted as tenant in any portion of the property by the plaintiff it is for the defendant to prove how he became tenant. The plaintiff has expressly stated that on account of his failure to examine the records of the office of the Custodian an inadvertant allegation was made that defendant was a tenant in the premises referred to in para 2 of the plaint. The trial court has observed that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. I do not agree. The plaintiff is entitled to withdraw or explain the alleged admission in the circumstances of this case. He is also seeking a decree with respect to additional portion in occupation of the defendant. These matters do not change the nature of the suit. On the other hand if the plaintiff by amendment claims further relief he should be allowed to amend. If the plaintiff is refused leave to amend the plaint, he would be required to file another suit for possession with respect to the portion referred to in para 2 of the plaint. The trial court acted illegally by refusing amendment to the plaintiff. The trial court ought to have accepted his application for amendment. The revision is accepted and the order of the trial court is set aside.
(5) Brief Facts The impugned property was an evacuee property sold by auction to one Ganesh Dass for which a certificate of sale dated 28-9-1967 was granted to him. Ganesh Dass died and his four sons. executed a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff on 26-4-1982. On 17th November, 1982, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession and damages, against the defendant alleging in para 2 of the plaint that defendant was inducted as a tenant. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that he was not inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff but by Ganesh Dass. In replication the plaintiff alleged that defendant was not inducted as a tenant by Ganesh Dass. The plaintiff thereafter filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code . for leave to amend the plaint, on the ground that after verification from the office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was not a lawful tenant in any portion and that he is a tresspasser in the entire portion in his possession and that due to inadvertance and mistake due to unawareness of the correct state of facts wrong allegation was made in the plaint.
(6) The respondent contested the application on the ground that the admission on the part of the plaintiff regarding his status as a tenant cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment.
(7) The learned sub judge was pleased to decline leave to amend. In the present civil revision petition, the order of the learned sub-judge was set aside.