The Supreme Court of India in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N., AIR 2007 SC 806 : 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 477 : (2006) 12 SCC 1 : 2006 (13) SCALE 525: JT 2007 (1) SC 579 held that under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial.
A bench comprising of Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir. JJ. observed that the facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants were well within their knowledge and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants disentitling them to relief.
No facts are pleaded nor are any grounds raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants.
the bench said.
Under these circumstances, the case is covered by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied.
# Amendment Application
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002, the defendant ceased to be the Acharya was not entitled to enjoy any of the privileges or rights of Vadtal Gaadi.
Pursuant to that Resolution a new Acharya was appointed on 31.01.2003. Defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement. The trial court dismissed the amendment application of the defendants on the ground that the trial had commenced and the defendants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment application.
The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. After considering the correctness of the Orders below the Apex Court held that the matters sought to be raised by way of amendment by the defendants were well within their knowledge. This shows absence of due diligence on the part of the defendants. Hence amendment application rightly rejected.
# Meaning of Commencement of Trial in the context of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002 appellant No.1-defendant No. 1, having ceased to be the Acharya, was not entitled to enjoy any of the privileges or rights in respect of the said Vadtal Gaadi.
On 31.01.2003, a new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 11.05.2002. On 24.11.2005, the appellants moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the written statement.
The trial court dismissed the amendment application of the appellants on the ground that the trial had commenced and the appellants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment application. The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence the appeal.
While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held that the grant of amendment at this belated stage when deposition and the evidence of three witnesses is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, coupled with the fact that the appellants’ application praying for recasting of the issues having been denied and the said order never having been challenged by the appellants, the grant of the present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents-original plaintiffs and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied and the petition be dismissed.
Advocate S.B. Vakil, Hemang Parekh, H.M. Parekh, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E.C. Agrawala, Gaurav Goel and Dhrupad Kashyap appeared for the Appellants and K. Parasaran, Ashok H. Desai, Anip Sachthey, Harin P. Raval, P.G. Desai, H. Ahmedi, Mohit Paul, P. Purohit, Pradeep Ranjan Tiwari and Anivndh Sharma for the Respondents.
# Case Law Reference
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, [2006] 9 SCC 498
B.K. Narayana Pillai. v. Parameswaran Pillai, [2000] 1 SCC 712
Salem Advocate Bar Association. v. Union of India, [2005] 6 SCC 344
Kailash. v. Nanhku, [2005] 4 SCC 480
Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. AIR (1989) SC 406
Labour Commissioner. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mills, [1974] 7 SCR 484
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani. v. State of Maharashtra, [1967] 2 SCR 716
T.R. Sharma. v. Prithvi Singh, [1976] 2 SCR 716
Mahalaxmi Rice Mills. v. State of U.P., [1998] 6 SCC 590
Chairman, Canara Bank. v. M.S. Jaera, AIR (1992) SC 1341
H.J. Leach. v. Jardine Skinner, [1957] SCR 438
Gurdial Singh. v. Raj Kumar Aneja., AIR [2002] SC 1003
A bench comprising of Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir. JJ. observed that the facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants were well within their knowledge and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants disentitling them to relief.
No facts are pleaded nor are any grounds raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants.
the bench said.
Under these circumstances, the case is covered by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied.
# Amendment Application
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002, the defendant ceased to be the Acharya was not entitled to enjoy any of the privileges or rights of Vadtal Gaadi.
Pursuant to that Resolution a new Acharya was appointed on 31.01.2003. Defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement. The trial court dismissed the amendment application of the defendants on the ground that the trial had commenced and the defendants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment application.
The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. After considering the correctness of the Orders below the Apex Court held that the matters sought to be raised by way of amendment by the defendants were well within their knowledge. This shows absence of due diligence on the part of the defendants. Hence amendment application rightly rejected.
# Meaning of Commencement of Trial in the context of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002 appellant No.1-defendant No. 1, having ceased to be the Acharya, was not entitled to enjoy any of the privileges or rights in respect of the said Vadtal Gaadi.
On 31.01.2003, a new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 11.05.2002. On 24.11.2005, the appellants moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the written statement.
The trial court dismissed the amendment application of the appellants on the ground that the trial had commenced and the appellants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment application. The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence the appeal.
While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held that the grant of amendment at this belated stage when deposition and the evidence of three witnesses is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, coupled with the fact that the appellants’ application praying for recasting of the issues having been denied and the said order never having been challenged by the appellants, the grant of the present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents-original plaintiffs and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied and the petition be dismissed.
Advocate S.B. Vakil, Hemang Parekh, H.M. Parekh, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E.C. Agrawala, Gaurav Goel and Dhrupad Kashyap appeared for the Appellants and K. Parasaran, Ashok H. Desai, Anip Sachthey, Harin P. Raval, P.G. Desai, H. Ahmedi, Mohit Paul, P. Purohit, Pradeep Ranjan Tiwari and Anivndh Sharma for the Respondents.
# Case Law Reference
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, [2006] 9 SCC 498
B.K. Narayana Pillai. v. Parameswaran Pillai, [2000] 1 SCC 712
Salem Advocate Bar Association. v. Union of India, [2005] 6 SCC 344
Kailash. v. Nanhku, [2005] 4 SCC 480
Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. AIR (1989) SC 406
Labour Commissioner. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mills, [1974] 7 SCR 484
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani. v. State of Maharashtra, [1967] 2 SCR 716
T.R. Sharma. v. Prithvi Singh, [1976] 2 SCR 716
Mahalaxmi Rice Mills. v. State of U.P., [1998] 6 SCC 590
Chairman, Canara Bank. v. M.S. Jaera, AIR (1992) SC 1341
H.J. Leach. v. Jardine Skinner, [1957] SCR 438
Gurdial Singh. v. Raj Kumar Aneja., AIR [2002] SC 1003
Comments
Post a Comment