Dev Prakash Vs. Raj Kumar Kapoor & Ors.
Email(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6794 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6794 of 2001)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order VI, rule 17 – Plaint – Amendment of – Trial court allow-ing appellant to lead additional evidence and place on record a copy of sale deed – Subsequently, court rejecting the applica-tion for amendment of plaint on the ground of limitation and also on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the entire nature of the suit – On appeal, High Court also rejecting the prayer for amendment of plaint without assigning any reason. On appeal, held, High Court should have stated the reasons for the dismissal in the absence of which the order of dismissal can neither be ascribed to be fair nor proper. Since the amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit, amendment allowed without prejudice to the rights of the parties to take such pleas including the plea of limitation before the trial court. (Paras 4 and 5)
1. Leave granted.
2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that as late as October, 1999, the civil judge (junior division) Amritsar has allowed the application of the appellant to lead additional evidence in the matter to place on record a copy of the sale deed. Subsequently, on an application under order VI, rule 17 for amendment of the plaint, the additional civil judge thought it fit to reject the same on the ground of limitation and that the proposed amendment to the plaint would change the entire nature of the suit. Perusal of the records, however, shows that whatever was implicit has been made explicit by way of incorpora-tion of the amendment.
3. When the matter, however, was taken up before the High Court against the rejection order of amendment petition, the High Court considered it fit not to give a reasoned order and simply reject-ed the prayer. That order reads as below:
“No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.”
4. We think that the High Court would do better to state some reasons for the dismissal order in the absence of which the order of dismissal can neither be ascribed to be fair nor proper. Incidentally, this is not the first occasion and we have been noticing the same for quite some time. Reasons ought to be put forth. Otherwise, it becomes extremely difficult for this Court to assess the situation in its proper perspective.
5. Be that as it may, upon consideration of the matter, we do feel it expedient, as noticed above, that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The amendment, therefore, is allowed but without prejudice to the rights of the parties to take such plea, including the plea of limitation before the trial court, in the event the same is available. We understand that hearing has not commenced. Let the plaint be amended in accor-dance with the amendment application. Liberty to file an addi-tional written statement within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the amended copy in court before the learned judge.
6. Further opportunity be made available to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and if they are not desirous of adduc-ing further evidence, the hearing of the matter should commence expeditiously while the application for amendment stands allowed as noticed above, but the factum of some delay cannot be ignored and as such, the application for amendment is allowed upon pay-ment of costs assessed at Rs. 2,500/-. Such costs be paid by the appellant herein to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
