Bombay High Court
Chhabubai Haribhau Badakh vs Shri S.H. Khatod & Sons on 4 May, 2009
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1761 of 2009
Chhabubai Haribhau Badakh
Age 64 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Malunja (BK.). Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
.. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Shri S.H. Khatod & Sons
A Partnership Firm
At & P. Malunja, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar, through its
General Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Sohanlal Motilal Malpani
2. Shri S.B. Somani,
Age Major, Occ. Business,
Residing at Empire House, 3rd Floor,
214, Dr. D.N. Road,
Fort, Mumbai -1.
.. Respondent/s
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2009
Deelip Balwant Gaikwad
Age 40 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Malunja (Bk.) Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri S.H. Khatod & Sons
A Partnership Firm
At & P. Malunja, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar, through its
General Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Sohanlal Motilal Malpani
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::
( 2 )
2.Sitabai Sonachand Khatod
A Trust through
Shantabai Shrinivas Somani,
Age major, Occ. Business,
Residing at Empire House, 34d Floor,
214, Dr. D.N. Road,
Fort Mumbai-1.
..Respondent.
---
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1763 OF 2009
Gangadhar Baban Gaikwad,
Age 29 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Malunja (Bk.) Tq.Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
ig ..Petitioner
versus
1. Shri S.H. Khatod & Sons
A Partnership Firm
At & P. Malunja, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar, through its
General Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Sohanlal Motilal Malpani
2. Arun Kela
Age Major, Occ. Business,
Residing at Empire House, 3rd Flor,
214, Dr. D.N. Road,
Fort Mumbai - 1.
..Respondent
-
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1764 OF 2009
Suman Ramdas Bute
Age 35 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Malunja (Bk.) Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
.. Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::
( 3 )
Versus
1. Shri S.H. Khatod & Sons
A Partnership Firm
At & P. Malunja, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar, through its
General Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Sohanlal Motilal Malpani
2. S.B. Somani
Age Major, Occ. Business,
Residing at Empire House, 3rd Floor,
214, Dr. D.N. Road,
Fort, Mumbai-1.
.. Respondents
--
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1765 OF 2009
Pralhad Nandraj Yewale
Age 39 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Malunja (Bk.) Tq. Shrirampur
District Ahmednagar.
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri S.H. Khatod & Sons
A Partnership Firm
At & P. Malunja, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar, through its
General Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Sohanlal Motilal Malpani
2. Arun Kela
Age Major, Occ. Business,
Residing at Empire House, 3rd Floor,
214, Dr.D.N. Road,
Fort, Mumbai-1.
.. Respondents.
--
Mr.S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent No.1
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J.
DATE : 4th May, 2009.
---
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::
( 4 )
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
. The petitioners in this group of petitions have filed Regular Civil Suits against the respondents for declaration that the petitioners/planitiffs have become owner of the suit land described in the plaint, by adverse possession and for a further direction to the respondent authorities to effect entries in the record of rights. On being noticed, the respondents appeared in the respective suits and filed written statement verified by one Nandkishore Parik. The claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners was resisted by the respondent No.1 in the said written statement.
2. One of the plaintiffs in the identical suit filed an application that the written statement filed by the said Shri Parik cannot be treated as a written statement and prayed for "No W.S. Order".
. Subsequently, an application came to be filed by said Shri Parik for amendment which has been filed on 22/1/2009, for incorporating an averment that the said written statement has been filed by the General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the defendants.
The said application was allowed. Hence, the present petitions.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::( 5 )
3. Shri Shelke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the amendment has been allowed at the fag end of the trial. He submits that the amendment is allowed totally ignoring the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. and as such, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.
Shri Shelke, relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of "Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others"
reported in AIR 2007 SC 806 and " Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another" (2009) 2 SCC 409.
4. Shri Navandar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the contrary submits that the courts should take a liberal view in grant of amendment. He submits that, by the amendment which is allowed, the respondents/defendants only wanted to incorporate a sentence that the written statement has been filed by the General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the defendants. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram and Another" reported in 2008(3) All M.R. 843, "Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahmad and others" reported in (2008)3 SCc 717; "Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others" reported in (2007) 6 SCC 167; "Usha Balasaheb Swami and others. Vs Kiran Appaso Swami and others" reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602; "Baldev Singh ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 ::: ( 6 ) and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another" (2006) 6 SCC 498; "United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar and others" (1996) 6 SCC 660; "Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram kaleshwar Prasad Singh and another" (2006) 1 SCC 75; "Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand"
(2008) 5 SCC 117; "Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan"
(2005) SCC 89 and "Rajkumar Gurjwara (Dead) through LRs Vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Pvt. Ltd. and another" reported in (2008) 14 SCC 364. He also relies on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in the matter of "Bharat Petroleum Corporation Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Ltd." reported in 2007(1) Mh.L.J. Precious Finance 331. Investment
5. From the perusal of the record, it could be seen that the written statement was filed by the said Shri Parik on 28th April, 2006. Therafter, the issues were framed, evidence was led on behalf of the parties and at the stage of fag end of the trial, the aforesaid application for amendment of the written statement came to be filed after a period of almost 3 years. No doubt, that the learned counsel for the respondents is right in contending that the courts are required to take liberal view in grant of amendment.
However, by way of amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure effected on 1st July, 2002, a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 has been introduced. The said proviso requires that if the amendment is sought to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 ::: ( 7 ) brought on record after commencement of the trial, a party is required to satisfy the condition that the matter which is sought to be brought on record by way of an amendment could not be brought on record prior to commencement of the trial inspite of exercise of due diligence. It is thus clear that if the amendment is sought to be carried out in a suit after the amendment to CPC i.e. 1st July, 2002, it is necessary for a party to satisfy the aforesaid condition.
6. The Apex Court in the matter of "Ajendraprasad" ( cited supra ) has observed thus :-
. "It is submitted that the date of settlement of issues is the date of commencement of trial. [ Kailash Vs. Nankhu and others] 2005 AIR SCW 2346. Either treating the date of settlement of issues as date of commencement of trial, the matter will fall under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The defendant has, therefore, to prove that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. We have already referred to the dates and events very elaborately mentioned in the counter affidavit which proves lack of due diligence on the part of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants)."
. The Apex Court in the matter of "Vidyabai" ( cited supra ) has observed as under :-
"By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment)Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which reads thus :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::
( 8 ) "Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial"
It is thus clear that if the amendment is sought after the commencement of trial, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of exercise of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, the amendment cannot be allowed. In the present case, leave aside any averment regarding due diligence, the there is not even a whisper in the written statement about same. The only statement is that while filing the written statement the fact regarding said Mr. Parik being General Power of Attorney Holder could not be mentioned due to inadvertence. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the amendment as there is nothing on record to show that the matter which was sought to be brought on record could not have been brought on record before the commencement of trial in spite of exercise of due diligence by the respondents/defendants.
7. In so far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Puran Ram" (supra) is concerned, it can be seen that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 ::: ( 9 ) suit in the said case was filed in the year 1997 and as such, it is not governed by the amended provisions of the C.P.C.
8. In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of "Ahdhra Bank" (supra) is concerned, the said suit is also filed much prior to the amendment being made to the C.P.C. and as such, the said judgment would not be of any assistance to the case of the respondents.
9. the The case same is the case with the judgment of "United Bank of India" (supra).
in The suit in the case was filed in the year 1984.
10. In the case of Uday Shankar Triyar (supra) the suit was filed in the year 1989. In the case of Chander Kanta Bansal (supra) the suit was filed in the year 1986. In the case of Sajjan Kumar (supra) though from the judgment it is not clear as to in which year the suit was filed, it can be seen from the judgment that the order of the trial court was 29th April, 2002. It is thus clear that the said suit is also filed prior to the amendment to the CPC.
11. It could thus clearly be seen that in all the aforesaid cases relied upon by the learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 ::: ( 10 ) counsel for the respondents, the suits were filed prior to the amendment of C.P.C. As such, the said judgments would not be of any assistance to the respondents.
12. In so far as the judgment in the matter of "Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahmed" (supra) is concerned, in the facts of the said case it was found by the Apex Court that the evidence had not begun and as such, it was found that since the application was prior to commencement of trial, it was not necessary to satisfy Order VI Rule 17.
the condition stipulated in proviso to
13. In so far as judgment in the case of "Usha Balasaheb Swami and others" (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court itself has observed thus :-
"However, Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable in the present case as the trial of the suit has not yet commenced."
14. In the case of "Baldevsingh" (supra) also the parties were yet to file documents and as such, the Apex Court took a view that the trial was yet to commence and, therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 would not be applicable.
15. In so far as the judgment in the case of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 ::: ( 11 ) "Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs" (supra), the said judgment, instead of supporting the case of the respondents, in effect, supports the case of the present petitioners. The Apex Court in the said case has observed thus :-
"The first part of the rule makes it abundantly clear that at any stage of the proceedings, parties are free to alter or amend their pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. However, this Rule is subject to proviso appended therein.
The said Rule with proviso again substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 17/2002 makes it clear that after the commencement of the trial, no application for amendment shall be allowed. However, if the parties to the proceedings are able to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence they could not raise the issue before the commencement of trial and the court is satisfied with their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial.
. To put it clear, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::
( 12 )
16. It could thus clearly be seen that in the present case, the amendment which is sought to be made is after a period of 3 years from the filing of the written statement and that too after evidence is led by the parties and the suit is at the fag end of trial. In this factual background, I am of the considered view that the amendment could not have been allowed. The learned trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application unless it was satisfied that the matter sought to be brought on record could not be brought on record prior to the due commencement diligence.
ig of trial in spite of exercise
In that view of the matter, writ
of
petitions deserve to be allowed.
17. Writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). There shall be no orders as to costs.
[B.R. GAVAI] JUDGE.
grt/ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:34:36 :::