Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Judges
  • Justice R.C. Lahoti
  • Justice G.P. Mathur
Acts
  • Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
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
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Judges
  • Justice R.C. Lahoti
  • Justice G.P. Mathur
Acts
  • Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit to recover Rs 5,77,300 on the basis of a document dated 1-4-1995. The defendant-appellants contested the claim. After one of the plaintiffs had been examined, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to amend their written statement by introducing an additional plea. Both the trial court and the High Court rejected this request, prompting the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the defendants should be permitted to amend their written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after commencement of trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents (Plaintiffs)

  • The proposed amendment would drastically alter the nature of the defence.
  • It would amount to a withdrawal of admissions previously made by the defendants.

Appellants (Defendants)

  • Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the court retains discretion to allow amendments at any stage if necessary to resolve the real controversy.
  • The amendment would not prejudice the plaintiffs beyond necessitating their re-examination.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court held that the discretion conferred by Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendments at any stage when required to determine the true questions in controversy. Assessing the proposed amendment, the Court concluded that it neither fundamentally changed the defence nor withdrew any earlier admission. Although the application was filed after the trial had commenced, the only potential prejudice to the plaintiffs would be the necessity of re-examination, which could be mitigated by costs. Consequently, the trial court’s refusal to allow the amendment unjustifiably prevented the defendants from presenting a material plea.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order dated 6-2-2001 and allowed the defendants’ application for amendment of the written statement, subject to payment of Rs 2,500 as costs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are granted liberty to make consequential amendments to the plaint or file a rejoinder. Payment of costs is a condition precedent to incorporating the amendment. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

The decision directly affects the parties by permitting the amendment and imposing costs; it does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying the discretionary principles of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Show full summary ...

    Pradeep Singhvi And Another v. Heero Dhankani And Others

    Order

    1. Leave granted.

    2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs 5,77,300 based on a document dated 1-4-1995. The defendant-appellants are contesting the suit. Soon after examination of one of the plaintiffs, the defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement raising an additional plea. The prayer has been rejected by the trial court as also by the High Court.

    3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the proposed amendment would have had the effect of drastically altering the nature of the defence or withdrawing an admission made earlier by the defendants. Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the court has discretion to permit at any stage of the proceedings such amendment in the pleadings as would be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

    4. Of course, by the time the defendants moved an application for amending the written statement, the trial had commenced but the proposed amendment, if allowed, would not have irreparably prejudiced the plaintiffs. At the most, the plaintiff would have been re-examined. We do not think that the trial court was justified in refusing the prayer for amendment in written statement which would have the effect of excluding the defendants from raising a plea material for their defence.

    5. The impugned order of the trial court dated 6-2-2001 is set aside. The defendant-respondents' application for amendment in written statement which came up for hearing on 15-1-2001 is allowed but subject to payment of costs of Rs 2500 to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs before the trial court. Needless to say, the plaintiffs shall have the liberty of incorporating consequential amendment in the plaint or filing rejoinder to the plea raised by the defendants in the written statement by way of amendment.

    6. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to the incorporation of amendment in the written statement.

    7. The appeal stands disposed of in the terms abovesaid.

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

    Comments

    Pradeep Singhvi And Another v. Heero Dhankani And Others
    (Jul 23, 2004)