- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Reserve Bank Of India And Another v. Ramkrishna Govind Morey .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, employed as a Grade II clerk in the Notes Cancellation Section of the Reserve Bank of India (Nagpur branch), had his services terminated with effect from October 27, 1952 under Regulation 25(2)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. Three years later, on October 27, 1955, he filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Nagpur, challenging the termination for lack of prior hearing and seeking (i) a declaration that he remained in service and (ii) arrears of salary.
During the suit:
- February 5, 1958 – The trial court allowed the Reserve Bank to amend its written statement by deleting a paragraph.
- March 3 & 18, 1958 – The plaintiff made two applications to amend his plaint; both were rejected on March 18, 1958.
- July 4, 1958 – A revision petition against the rejection of his amendment applications was summarily dismissed by the High Court (Nagpur Bench).
- January 23, 1960 – The trial court dismissed the suit with costs, holding the termination valid under the Staff Regulations.
- February 10, 1964 – The District Judge dismissed the first appeal.
- In second appeal, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that the amendment applications had been rejected without due consideration and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the amendments and an additional amendment application filed in the High Court.
The present appeal was filed by the Reserve Bank of India, by special leave, challenging the High Court's remand order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, in second appeal, had jurisdiction to interfere with and overturn concurrent discretionary orders of the trial court and first appellate court refusing the plaintiff’s amendment applications.
- Whether the remand directing reconsideration of the plaintiff’s amendment applications—including one filed nearly nineteen years after the institution of the suit—was legally sustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the High Court’s interference stemmed from an impression that, because the defendant’s amendment had been allowed, fairness required allowing the plaintiff’s amendments. However, the Supreme Court noted:
- The plaintiff did not challenge the order permitting amendment of the written statement, which had become final.
- Both the trial court and first appellate court, after examining the entire record, found the proposed amendments “highly prolix” and unnecessary.
- The High Court failed to examine whether the amendments were truly required to advance the plaintiff’s case. If they merely reiterated existing pleadings, they were redundant; if they introduced a new case, no justification was shown for permitting such change.
- The High Court overlooked the earlier dismissal of a revision petition that had challenged the very same refusal of amendment; thus, the matter had already attained finality.
- Determining the necessity of amendments is a matter of discretion; whether that discretion should have been exercised differently does not raise a question of law warranting interference in second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.
- An amendment application presented nearly nineteen years after the suit’s filing was, on its face, inordinately delayed, and no compelling reason existed to entertain it.
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in remanding the case on the amendment question and had not yet considered the substantive merits of the second appeal.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order of remand, and remitted the matter to the High Court for adjudication of the second appeal on its merits. Except for an earlier order dated December 19, 1975, there was no order as to costs.
Implications: The decision underscores the limited scope of High Court interference in second appeal, especially concerning discretionary procedural orders of lower courts. It affirms that such discretion will not be disturbed absent a clear legal error, and that belated amendment applications lacking justification are not entitled to indulgence. No new substantive precedent was announced, but the ruling reinforces procedural discipline in appellate practice.
A.C Gupta, J.— The respondent was employed as a clerk Grade II in the Notes Cancellation Section at the Nagpur branch of the appellant Reserve Bank of India. On October 25, 1952 Reserve Bank of India terminated his service with effect from October 27, 1952 acting under Regulation 25(2)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. On October 27, 1955 the respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Nagpur, alleging that the termination of his service without giving him a hearing was illegal and praying for a declaration that he continued to be an employee of Reserve Bank and for a decree for arrears of salary. On February 5, 1958 the trial court allowed an application of the defendant Reserve Bank of India for amendment of the written statement by deleting a para thereof. On March 3 and 18, 1958 the respondent made two successive applications for amendment of the plaint. The trial court rejected both these applications on March 18, 1958. The respondent moved the High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in revision against the order rejecting his applications for amendment; a learned Judge of the High Court by his order dated July 4, 1958 summarily rejected the revision petition. Thereafter the suit was heard and dismissed with costs on January 23, 1960. The trial court held that the respondent was governed by Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 and that the order terminating his service was legal and valid. The appeal taken by the respondent against the decision of the trial court was also dismissed by the District Judge at Nagpur on February 10, 1964. The respondent preferred a second appeal and the High Court in the second appeal took the view that the applications for amendment of the plaint had been rejected without due consideration, and remanded the case to the trial court directing the latter to consider afresh the amendment applications made on March 3 and 18, 1958 and also to dispose of another application for amendment of the plaint the respondent had filed in the High Court. The appeal before us is brought on special leave by Reserve Bank of India questioning the correctness of the order of remand made by the High Court.
2. From the tenor of the High Court's judgment it seems that the learned Judge thought that the trial court should not have allowed the written statement to be amended; according to the learned Judge the para of the written statement deleted by way of amendment lent support to the plaintiffs case. But the plaintiff did not move against the order allowing amendment of the written statement which had become final, and the trial court on an “examination of the whole of the pleadings and documents on record” found that the proposed amendment of the plaint besides being “highly prolix” was unnecessary. The lower appellate court also agreed with this finding. The High Court appears to have felt that the defendant's prayer for amendment having been allowed, the plaintiffs applications should not have been refused and observed that the amendments sought for by the plaintiff might be “necessary from the point of view of the plaintiff” and that the lower courts ought to have tested “the amendment applications of the plaintiff on that ground”. The High Court however did not try to find out if the proposed amendments were really necessary for the plaintiff's case. If the applications for amendment made by the plaintiff contained allegations in line with what was stated in the original plaint, the amendments would be redundant; if they were different, no valid reason is given why the plaintiff should be permitted to improve on the case as originally made. The plaintiff's case did not depend on what the defendant might say in the written statement and if what he proposed to introduce in the plaint by way of amendment was relevant to his case, there is no apparent reason why this was left out when the plaint was filed. Prima facie, therefore, the order of the trial court rejecting the plaintiff's applications for amendment of the plaint was not arbitrary. Whether the trial court should not have exercised its discretion differently is not a question of law justifying interference by the High Court in second appeal. The learned Judge of the High Court also failed to consider the fact that a revisional application from the order refusing amendment had earlier been dismissed by the High Court. For these reasons we hold that the High Court had no jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in its discretion which was affirmed by the lower appellate court. As for the application for amendment that the respondent had filed in High Court about 19 years after the institution of the suit, there is no compelling reason why this belated application should be allowed. We find that the High Court did not go into the merits of the appeal which remain to be considered. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court remanding the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the amendment applications, and remit the matter to the High Court for disposal of the second appeal on merits. Except as directed by the order passed on December 19, 1975 there will be no order as to cost.
Alert