Raj Narain Aggarwal vs Baij Nath Khanna on 26 May, 1983
(13) Lastly Mr. Gupta brought to my attention a decision of H.L. Anand, J. in Mulkh Raj v. Ch. Surat Sing, 1973 P.L.R. 235 (Delhi Section) in support of his submission that for purposes of the present case it was not necessary to go into the question whether the plea of the tenant on merits will succeed or not. That question, he contended, will be decided on evidence. All that the court has to see at this stage, he submitted, is whether the tenant is entitled to raise the plea by way of amendment or not. I do not agree. In my opinion it is the duty of the court to see whether under Order Vi Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code a plea raised by a party is "necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties", to use the words of the statute. The court does not exist for so commercial a purpose as awarding costs and allowing amendments without deciding whether in a given case a certain point arises for determination or not. Only those amendments as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties can be allowed. If the amendment sought is unnecessary or irrelevant or vexatious or is intended to delay the proceedings it is the duty of the court to refuse such an amendment because otherwise the court will be deciding unnecessary and irrelevant questions and the trial of the suit or proceeding will become interminable.