Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1996 INSC 999
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • Uma Datta, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Judges
  • Justice K. Ramaswamy
Acts
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 6 Rule 17)
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
1996 INSC 999
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • Uma Datta, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Judges
  • Justice K. Ramaswamy
Acts
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 6 Rule 17)
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of the Order

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and possession concerning land measuring 134 kanals and 14 marlas in Village Japuwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, claiming title as the adopted son of Isher Singh. [1]

The petitioner initially denied Isher Singh’s title and asserted title in Darbar Sahib. After the parties had completed their evidence, the petitioner sought to amend the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to plead that Isher Singh had gifted the property to Darbar Sahib, Amritsar Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee. [1]

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Civil Revision No. 1023 of 1996, set aside the order permitting the amendment because the proposed plea was mutually destructive of the original pleading and because the delay was unexplained. [1] The petitioner then filed the present special leave petition against the High Court’s order dated 17 May 1996. [1]

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner could amend its written statement after the close of evidence to plead that Isher Singh had gifted the property, despite having originally denied that Isher Singh possessed title. [1][2]
  2. Whether the unexplained delay in seeking the amendment justified its refusal. [3][2]
  3. Whether the High Court committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference. [2]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that the original written statement had already referred, though remotely, to Isher Singh’s gift of the property and that the proposed amendment merely sought to state that plea more specifically. [3]
  • Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated that the gift clause was contained in the original pleading and was only being elaborated through documents obtained at a later stage. [2]
  • Petitioner’s counsel had conceded before the High Court that there was no explanation for failing to raise the plea initially or for seeking amendment belatedly. [3]

Respondent’s Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized the settled principle that a defendant may raise mutually inconsistent pleas, subject to the court determining whether those pleas permit proper adjudication of the issues. [2]

It concluded, however, that the proposed plea was not merely inconsistent but mutually destructive. Having originally denied Isher Singh’s title, the petitioner could not subsequently attribute title to him in order to plead that he had gifted the property to the petitioner-Committee. [2]

The Court also emphasized that the amendment was sought only after the parties had adduced evidence and the matter was ready for argument, without any explanation for the delay. [2] It therefore found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the High Court’s refusal of the amendment. [2]

Holding and Implications

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION DISMISSED. [4]

The High Court’s refusal to allow the belated amendment consequently remained in effect. [1][2][4] The order applies settled law concerning inconsistent pleadings and unexplained delay; it does not announce a new precedent. [2]

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Shrimoni Gurdwara Committee v. Jaswant Singh .

    Order

    1. This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on 17-5-1996 in Civil Revision No. 1023 of 1996. The respondent instituted a suit for declaration of his title to the land admeasuring 134 kanals 14 marlas in Hb. No. 349 in Village Japuwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and also for possession of the property. It is his case that he is the adopted son of one Isher Singh and that while he was in possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner had disputed his title to and interest in the said land and filed a suit. The petitioner had pleaded in the written statement that Isher Singh had no title to the property and they set up the title in Darbar Sahib and that he had gifted the property in favour of Darbar Sahib. Subsequently, the parties, on the basis of issues raised, adduced evidence. At the end of the trial, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the written statement pleading that Isher Singh had gifted over the property to Darbar Sahib, Amritsar Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee and it was in possession as a legatee of the property. There was neither an issue nor any evidence adduced in that behalf. Therefore, the High Court has set aside the order on two grounds, namely, one, though inconsistent pleas are permissible to be taken in the written statement, this case is not one of inconsistence but mutually destructive of the pleadings and two, for unexplained delay.

    2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the High Court conceded that there is no explanation for not taking that plea in the written statement and for coming up with an application for amendment at a belated stage. However, he contended that they have remotely stated in the written statement that Isher Singh had gifted the property but by way of amendment the petitioner would be making specific amendment in the written statement. That contention was not accepted by the High Court.

    3. The same contention has been reiterated before us. We find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pleading does contain the gift clause in the original written statement and that it is sought to be elaborated by obtaining proper documents at this belated stage. It is settled law that the defendant can raise mutually inconsistent pleadings in the written statement but it is for the court to consider whether the case can be properly considered in deciding the issue. But in this case the plea in the written statement is mutually destructive. In the first written statement, they have denied the title of Isher Singh himself. When such is the situation, how can they set up a title in him and plead gift made by Isher Singh in favour of the petitioner-Committee. Under these circumstances, the High Court has rightly refused to grant the plaint. Moreover, there is no explanation given as to why they came forward with this plea at the belated stage after the parties had adduced the evidence and the matter was to be argued. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference.

    4. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Shrimoni Gurdwara Committee v. Jaswant Singh .
    (Sep 4, 1996)