IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2015
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10161 of 2014)
Mount Mary Enterprises . ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
9. The main reason assigned by the trial court for rejection of the amendment application was that upon enhancement of the valuation of the suit property, the suit was to be transferred to the High Court on its original side. In our view, that is not a reason for which the amendment application should have been rejected. With regard to amendment of plaint, the following observation has been made by this Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 :
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (1957) 1 SCR 595 which still holds the filed, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs."
10. In our opinion, on the basis of the aforestated legal position, the amendment application made by the plaintiff should have been granted, especially in view of the fact that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was initially undervalued in the plaint and by virtue of the amendment application, the plaintiff wanted to correct the error and wanted to place correct market value of the suit property in the plaint.
11. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the amendment application should not have been rejected by the trial court and the High Court should not have confirmed the order of rejection.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and the order dated 22nd November, 2013 of the trial court, whereby the amendment application had been rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2015
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10161 of 2014)
Mount Mary Enterprises . ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
9. The main reason assigned by the trial court for rejection of the amendment application was that upon enhancement of the valuation of the suit property, the suit was to be transferred to the High Court on its original side. In our view, that is not a reason for which the amendment application should have been rejected. With regard to amendment of plaint, the following observation has been made by this Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 :
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (1957) 1 SCR 595 which still holds the filed, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs."
10. In our opinion, on the basis of the aforestated legal position, the amendment application made by the plaintiff should have been granted, especially in view of the fact that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was initially undervalued in the plaint and by virtue of the amendment application, the plaintiff wanted to correct the error and wanted to place correct market value of the suit property in the plaint.
11. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the amendment application should not have been rejected by the trial court and the High Court should not have confirmed the order of rejection.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and the order dated 22nd November, 2013 of the trial court, whereby the amendment application had been rejected.
Comments
Post a Comment