Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 11 May, 1987
In Surjit Singh Atwal's case plaintiff
had filed a suit for recovery of certain amount of money
which he claimed to be due to him from the Union of India
under a contract. The Union of India filed a written state-
ment five years after the filing of the suit wherein they
raised no plea that the contract between the parties was hit
by failure to comply with the provisions of Section 175(3)
of the Government of India Act, 1935. More than a dozen
years after the institution of the suit and eight years
after the filing of the written statement, an application
for amendment of the written statement was filed on behalf
of the Union of India raising a plea that the contract was
hit by the failure to comply with the provisions of Section
175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The trial court
dismissed the suit in view of the additional plea raised in
the written statement, but the High Court decreed the suit.
On appeal by the Union of India this Court upheld the order
of the High Court, and in that connection it observed that
the illegality of the contract should have been specifically
pleaded as required by Order VI Rule 8 and Order VIII Rule 2
of
387
the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision has no relevance
to the question under consideration.