Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 19 (PNJ)

Asha Bhatia and Another v. Veena Bhatia

2014-01-08

SABINA

body2014
Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.5.2012 whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC' for short), was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners wanted to incorporate certain facts in the plaint as they were inadvertently not mentioned in the plaint. Further the petitioners wanted to make some corrections in the plaint which had arisen on account of typographical errors. Learned counsel has further submitted that, although, issues have been framed but so far no evidence had been led by the petitioners. The amendment sought by the petitioners was very necessary for the just decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another', 2010 (1) CCC 0446, wherein it was held as under:-- 15. We are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this case, in our view, the trial has not yet commenced. In para 17, of Baldev Singh (Supra), this Court observed:-- It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the Trial Court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinafter, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the Court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings. 16. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the admitted fact that not even the issues have yet been framed, documents have not yet been filed, evidence has not yet been adduced, we are of the view that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has no manner of application as the trial has not yet commenced. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that by way of amendment, the petitioners wanted to withdraw the admissions made by them in the plaint. 3. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as under:- Amendment of pleadings:-- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such "terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties". Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 4. Thus, as per the above provision, the Court has ample power to allow either of the party to amend its pleadings which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, as per the proviso the application for amendment shall not be allowed after the trial has commenced. 5. In the present case, admittedly evidence has not been adduced so far, thus, trial has not yet commenced in terms of proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. By way of amendment, petitioners want that para 2 of the plaint be deleted and in its place it be added that property in question was purchased by M/s. Indian Pressing and Turnings a partnership firm. The said partnership was dissolved with effect from 31.3.1989 and a dissolution deed was executed on 14.4.1989. Vikram Bhatia became partner of the firm M/s. Indian Pressings and Turnings having 50% share with Veena Bhatia. So far as para 3 of the plaint is concerned, it was prayed that instead of words "No. 1" it be incorporated "died". In para 4 of the plaint it was prayed that in the 4th line instead of word "defendants" it be written as "plaintiffs". 6. Annexure P-2 reply filed by the respondents reveals that it was admitted that Vikram Bhatia had become partner of the firm but to the extent of 40% share in profit and loss of the firm only. In para 4 of the plaint it was prayed that in the 4th line instead of word "defendants" it be written as "plaintiffs". 6. Annexure P-2 reply filed by the respondents reveals that it was admitted that Vikram Bhatia had become partner of the firm but to the extent of 40% share in profit and loss of the firm only. In view of the reply filed by the respondents, the Trial Court should have allowed the application for amendment as the petitioners also want to incorporate the fact that Vikram Bhatia had become partner of the firm. It will be seen during trial as to whether Vikram Bhatia had become partner of the firm to the extent of half share or to the extent of 40% share as pleaded by the respondents/defendants. The other amendment sought by the petitioners was merely on account of typographical errors. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments has failed to point out that the amendment sought by the petitioners would amount to withdrawal of their admissions. The trial in the present case is yet to commence and in case the petitioners are allowed to amend their plaint, it would enable the Trial Court to dispose of the controversy between the parties in a more fair and just manner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.5.2012 is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint is allowed.