Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 69 (UTT)

Sridhar Prasad Lakhera v. Sudhir Prasad Lakhera

2003-07-10

RAJESH TANDON

body2003
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. : The present revision arises out of the order dated 6.3.2003 by which application paper no. 113-C of the defendant has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff Sri Sudhir Prasad Lakhera purporting for partion of the property of Arat Bazar, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and for a decree of accounting In his favour. Written statement was filed by the defendant. In paragraph 4 of the counter claim, defendant has claimed decree for declaration without mentioning the value of the counter claim although he has paid Court fee. When the matter came up for hearing before the Civil Judge on 12.10.1999 the learned Civil Judge decided issue no. 7 against the defendant and issue no. 8 against the plaintiff. Thereafter an application was moved in which the defendant has stated that the valuation of• the property being four lacks and the same may be permitted to be mentioned in para no. 4 of the counter claim. Application was moved in pursuance of order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge. The application was not opposed by the plaintiff however, the said application was decided by the impugned order on 6.3.2003. 3. Heard Sri B.P. Nautiyal learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manish Juyal counsel for the respondent. Admittedly by the order dated 12.10.1999 defendant was permitted to amend the valuation clause but the defendant could not move amendment application immediately. Since the amendment application was moved by the defendant and the same was not opposed by the plaintiff in writing and further there was already a direction for moving an amendment application in the valuation clause, there was no impediment in allowing amendment application. Civil Judge while rejecting the application paper no. 1110-C has already mentioned that by order dated 12.10.1999 defendant was allowed to amend valuation clause and in order to do substantial justice between the parties amendment application couldn't be rejected. It is well established principles of law that it is the duty of the court also to advance justice between the parties. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, also should not be hyper technical while ejecting the application 113-C. Law on he amendment of pleadings is very clear and amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even at the appellate stage. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, also should not be hyper technical while ejecting the application 113-C. Law on he amendment of pleadings is very clear and amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even at the appellate stage. It has been held by the apex court in B.KN. Pillai us. P. Pillai, 2000 S.C. & Full Bench Rent Cases page 32 as under :"The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in sych manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court.. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances .But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid. uncalled for multiplicity of litigation." Since the parties are litigating at the trial stage it is more necessary that the amendment should have been allowed instead of taking too technical view of the matter. 4. Therefore, the revision is allowed. The plaintiff will get cost of Rs. 500/- from the defendant. Amendment shall be incorporated within two weeks after production of certified copy of the order. The suit is of the year 1991, that same shall be decided as far as possible within two months after filing a certified copy of this order. Parties or directed to appear in the trial Court 2.8.2003.