Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri N.K. Vij vs Kamal Kapoor on 5 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR363
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by N.K. Vij petitioner directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dated 14.11.1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent seeking amendment of the written statement.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner has filed an ejectment petition against the respondent alleging that he has not paid the arrears of rent from the period 6.5.1982 onwards. The rent is stated to be Rs. 13,000/- per month. Reply was filed. It has further been pointed out that earlier an ejectment petition had been filed which was allowed and the petitioner had obtained the possession. After having been evicted, the respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for amendment of the written statement asserting that the petitioner has executed an agreement with the respondent on 25.4.1990 at Amritsar. As per agreement, the petitioner had received from the respondent jewellery worth Rs. 10 lacs and had agreed to withdraw the petition for eviction.
3. The petition as such was contested pointing out that the respondent has already made a statement in this Court that he has vacated the premises. It was further alleged that no such agreement had been executed on 25.4.1990. The agreement was described to be forged and fabricated document.
4. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment application holding that the respondent by virtue of the amendment only seeks to incorporate certain subsequent events which took place during the pendency of the petition. No definite conclusion about the genuineness or legality of the document should be expressed. With this reasoning, the amendment was allowed.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition has been filed.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that in the earlier eviction proceedings in this Court the respondent had already made a statement that possession has been delivered. At that time it was never brought to the notice of the Court that there was any such agreement dated 25.4.1990. No such agreement had ever been executed and the respondent was only trying to delay the proceedings by introducing false documents. On the contrary, respondent's learned counsel urged that the fact as to whether the document is genuine or false has yet to be adjudicated. The respondent should not be debarred to take the pleas which was available in law. Otherwise also, it was urged that though in earlier proceedings between the parties such an amendment had been disallowed but that order passed at the motion stage should not bind the parties.
7. Taking up the contention of the learned counsel as to the effect of the earlier order passed between the parties, it needs only to be mentioned that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for recovery of certain sums. The said civil suit was being contested. During the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent had filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The learned Additional Civil Judge had declined the amendment. In the Civil Revision Petition No. 1250 of 1996 titled Kamal Kapoor v. N.K. Vij, filed by the respondent and decided on 27.11.1996, this Court held as under:-
"These facts clearly demonstrate that the sole attempt of the petitioner is to drag the respondent on one pretext or the other. Present suits for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,29,605/- (in C.R. No. 1250 of 1996) and Rs. 83,320/- (in C.R. No. 1255 of 1996) are pending since November, 1986 and March, 1983 respectively. Otherwise too, in view of very strained relations between the parties i.e. eviction order against the petitioner clearly brings out the precise purpose for which this plea is now being set up. The trial Court while declining the application also noticed that even the original agreement intended to be set up has not seen the light of the day and so the application for amendment of the written statement has been filed merely to delay the suit. 1 find merit in this observation of the Court below. No doubt the Courts normally take a liberal view in allowing the amendment of the written statement but keeping in view the salient facts of the case, as briefly noticed above, the discretion exercised by the trial Court cannot be termed to be perverse or otherwise unwarranted. Finding no merit in the revision petitions the same are dismissed."
8. The legal position is not subject matter of much controversy that when a judgment is pronounced after hearing both the parties then it is binding inter se the parties. To state that it was decided at the motion stage will not make any difference. The judgment remains to be so even if it is disposed of after hearing both the parties at the motion stage or after it is admitted for hearing. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel must be held to be devoid of any merit.
9. It is true that ordinarily this Court will not express anything on the genuineness of a particular document. All this stage, when the application was filed seeking amendment and earlier certain opinion has been expressed by this Court, then judicial notice of the same can well be taken. As noticed above, in the earlier Revision Petition No. 1250 of 1996 decided on 27.11.1996 the extract of which has been reproduced above, the respondent has not been allowed to incorporate the said plea. Not only that, in another Civil Revision No. 4638 of 1997 titled Kamal Kapoor v. N.K. Vij decided by this Court on 22.1.1998, [Reported as as (1998-2) 119 P.L.R. 111] again a similar controversy had arisen. The respondent wanted to confront the petitioner with respect to the said agreement. This Court had disallowed the same. Consequently, the observations made earlier by this Court in the revision petition decided in the year 1996 stare glaringly at us. It was held that the intention is only to delay the proceedings. Admittedly, the respondent had earlier filed a civil suit at Amritsar relying on the same agreement. The plaint was returned but the civil suit has never been refiled.
10. Taking stock of the fact that there is a previous adjudication with respect to the said agreement and on earlier occasion no such agreement was set up, it is too late in the day to set up the said agreement to have been arrived at between the parties.
11. Supreme Court in the case of Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors., (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 675, indeed, had held that the Court can take notice of the subsequent events and allow amendment in this regard. Almost similar were the observations made by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander and Ors., A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 1165. Herein too, it was held that if the circumstances, change they can form the subject of some other proceedings. Sometime, the original relief claimed becomes inappropriate or the law changes affecting the rights of the parties.
12. This principles of law as such has not been disputed but still, prima facie, the Court can look into overall circumstances and also evaluate the intention of the parties. In fact, when prima facie, the same appears to be mala fide with the sole intention to deny the disposal of the petition, the long arm of law will not permit the same. The gist of the facts have already been given above. This agreement has earlier been considered and commented upon by this Court in two civil revision petitions mentioned above. It was held that the respondent was simply trying to delay the proceedings of the petition. On the basis of the agreement, a civil suit was filed at Amritsar. The plaint was returned but the same has never been refiled. The conclusions, thus, are obvious that in all fairness the amendment should not have been allowed. The earlier orders passed by this Court had not come into being and thus the learned trial Court had allowed the amendment.
13. For these reasons, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Instead, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of dismissed.