Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1441 (PNJ)

Ram Kumar v. Shanti

2001-12-21

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - The challenge in this revision is to the impugned order whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. The proposed amendment to the plaint was declined mainly on the ground that it is barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, challenging the impugned order, contended that even if the relief sought by way of amendment is barred by time, the amendment can be allowed. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others, 2001(2) Supreme Court Cases 472. 3. It is true that purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend this pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide. It is also observed that delay on its own is not a ground for rejection of the application, as held in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., 2001(8) SCC 97 . It is also observed under para 8 that, "in certain situations, a time barred claim cannot be allowed to be raised by proposing an amendment to take away the valuable accrued right of a party. However, mere delay in making an amendment application itself is not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be compensated in terms of money. Amendment is to be allowed when it does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite side." 4. The Apex Court in Dondapati Narayan Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and others, 2001(8) SCC 115 has of course observed that the amendment should, generally, be allowed unless it is established that the result would be such injustice and prejudice against the opposite side as could not be compensated by costs. It is also observed that amendment may also be refused where a prayer made separately has become barred by time. 5. In the given case in hand, the decree was passed on 16.9.1987 and the plaintiff wants to challenge the said decree after 12 years saying that he came to know about this fact when the respondents had filed the written statement. The civil suit is pending since 1991, as observed by the trial Court. 5. In the given case in hand, the decree was passed on 16.9.1987 and the plaintiff wants to challenge the said decree after 12 years saying that he came to know about this fact when the respondents had filed the written statement. The civil suit is pending since 1991, as observed by the trial Court. Even the application for amendment was not filed immediately after the filing of the written statement but at a very late stage. 6. Adverting to the nature of the suit, the plaintiff has challenged the decrees passed by the different Courts, the details of which are given as under :- "1. The judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 52 passed on 2.4.1990, by Shri S.C. Goyal, SJIC, Hisar, re: Ranbir Singh v. Ram Kumar. 2. Civil Court decree in Arbitration case No. 191-6 of 17.9.1990, passed on 5.11.1990 in arbitration application by Shri J.S. Dahiya, Sub Judge, Hisar, re: Shanti v. Ram Kumar. 3. Civil Court decree dated 16.9.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 680-C of 1987, re : Shanti Devi v/s. Ram Kumar, passed by Shri M.C. Mehra., SJIC, Hisar. 7. The petitioner now wants to challenge the decree dated 16.7.1987, titled Shanti Devi v/s. Ram Kumar, passed by Shri M.C. Mehra. Thus, the description of both the cases, the name of the Court is identical though date is different. Thus, where the parties had been litigating over a matter for years, the description of one case is likely to be missed. Thus, howsoever negligent a party may be, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed to amend the plaint on the terms prayed for because permitting the amendment would not be unjust nor it would result in prejudice to the parties which can be compensated by costs. 8. In Dondapati Narayana Reddys case (supra), it has been held that rules governing pleadings and leading of evidence have been incorporated to advance the interests of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Resultantly, the proposed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code filed by the plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4000/-. Revision allowed.