Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. The learned senior counsel submitted that the settled position of law requires the Courts to adjudicate the application filed for amendment of Plaint before adjudication of an application filed for rejection of the Plaint. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Anita Kumari Gupta v. Late Ved Bhushan.1

30. Pursuant to the above said submission made by the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Makkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant No. 6 and Mr. Rattan, learned counsel for the defendant No. 7conceded to the same and therefore, this Court is first adjudicating the application filed by the Plaintiff/applicant under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the Plaint.

11. We are not only unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the application of the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and in the facts aforesaid, do not find any ground for rejection of the Plaint to have been made out but are also of the view that the order is erroneous also for dealing first with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, when an application filed earlier in point of time for amendment of the Plaint was pending consideration. We are of the opinion that once an application for amendment of the Plaint has been filed, even if after the filing of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ordinarily the application for amendment of the Plaint is to be considered first and it is only thereafter, if the amendment were to be refused, that the application for rejection of the Plaint as originally filed, is to be considered; needless to state that if the amendment is allowed, it has to be seen, whether the ground on which rejection is sought survives. It was so held by this Court as far back as in Wasudhir Foundation v. C. Lal & Sons 45 (1991) DLT 556 by aptly observing that Courts allow amendments, not really as a matter of power but in performance of loftier duty to deliver substantial justice and the ouster of Order VI Rule 17 CPC will throttle the very life line of Order VII Rule 11 and instead of promoting, would defeat the ends of justice. Alas, neither counsel cited the law before the learned Single Judge or before us.

18. Though the counsel for the respondents/defendants has handed over the judgments aforesaid but during the hearing has referred only to Lala Pancham and Usha Balashaheb Swami supra. Lala Pancham is cited to contend that where there is not the slightest basis in the Plaint as originally stood to make out a case of fraud, amendment to make out such a case has to be disallowed. It is argued that the plea of the appellant/Plaintiff by way of amendment of her having signed papers in blank and the same having been used for mutation, is a plea of fraud and since there was no basis therefor in the suit as originally filed, the said amendment cannot be allowed. However, reliance placed on the said judgment de hors the facts thereof, is misconceived. The Supreme Court in that case was concerned with, a suit by tenants for injunction against demolition by the landlord for the reason of the tenancy premises having been declared as dangerous. The suit was I.A. 10671/2023, 8068/2023, 9173/2023 & 2858/2024 in CS(COMM) 128/2022 Signing Date:08.10.2024 18:53:58 dismissed as untenable, since the demolition was at the instance of the Municipality. At the appellate stage, the Plaint was sought to be amended to plead that the demolition order of the Municipality was fraudulently induced by the landlord. It was such an amendment which was disallowed holding that in the suit as originally filed, there was no challenge to the order of the Municipality. The situation here is entirely different. Similarly, Usha Balashaheb Swami supra is relied only to contend that the general principles of amendment of the written statement are different from that applicable to amendment of the Plaint. However, the same does not amount to laying down that the amendment of Plaint can never be allowed.

97. On the aspect of amendment of Plaint at this stage, Mr. Nankani referred to the judgment dated 3rd March, 2023, passed by this Court whereby, this Court had impleaded the defendants No. 6-9 as the parties to the captioned suit on the prima facie satisfaction that the said parties are necessary and proper parties to the suit.

98. The position regarding amendment of the Plaint is well settled and the scope and ambit of the powers conferred to this Court while adjudicating an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been already explained in the foregoing paragraphs.