BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus MANOHAR SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 03-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
MANOHAR SINGH AND ANR. ETC. 
AUGUST 3, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 6, Rule 17--Amendment of pleadings-Governing principles--
Plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner and in possession C 
of the suit property alleging that the sale deeds executed in the names of his 
parents were benami transactions-The defendants filed their written statement 
denying that there was any agreement to sell the suit property or that the suit 
property was owned and possessed by the plaintiff-The defendants filed an 
application for amendment of the written statement alleging that the suit was D 
barred by limitation, that the father of the parties had sufficient income to pay 
the sale price of the suit property and that on the death of their parents the 
names of the plaintiff and the defendants had been mutated in equal shares 
in respect of the suit property-The High Court as well as the trial court 
rejected the application for amendment-Correctness of--Held: Wide power 
and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment E 
of the pleadings-Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer 
for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is 
caused to the other side-Amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written 
statement are not necessarily. governed by exactly the same principle--
Therefore, the courts should be more liberc:l in allowing amendment of the F 
written statement than of plaint-Inconsistent pleas can be raised by the 
defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible 
in the case of a plaint-Amendment allowed 
Words & Phrases: 
"Commencement of trial"--Meaning of--Jn the context of proviso to 
Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I 908. 
The plaintiff/respondent No. I filed a suit for a declaration that he 
was the owner and in possession of the suit property alleging that the sale 
G 
259 
H 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A deeds executed in the names of his parents were benami transactions. The 
appellants/defendants filed their written statement denying that there \Vas 
any agreement to sell the suit property or that the suit property was owned 
and possessed by the plaintiff/respondent No. I. 
During the pendency of the suit, the appellants/defendants filed an 
B application for amendment of the written statement alleging that the suit 
was barred by limitation, that the father of the parties had sufficient 
income to pay the sale price of the suit property and that on the death of 
their parents the names of the plaintiff and the defendants had been 
mutated in equal shares in respect of the suit property. The High Court 
C as well as the Trial Court rejected the application for amendment of the 
written statement. Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court: 
Whether the amendment sought for in the written statement, in the 
D facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have been allowed or not? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is well settled that Courts should be extremely liberal 
in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice 
E or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. (263-G-H( 
Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, AIR (1922) PC 249, referred 
to. 
2. In view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code 
p 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be doubted that wide power and 
unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment 
of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears 
to the Court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for 
amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the Court 
shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of 
G suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. 
(264-E( 
3.1. The plea of limitation can be allowed to be raised as an 
additional defence by the appellants. Accordingly, there is no reason as 
H to why amendment of the written statement introducing an additional plea 
-
-· 
BALDEV SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. MANOHAR SINGH 
261 
of limitation could not be allowed. 
Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan, [20011 2 SCC 472, relied on. 
3.2. The next question is that if such an amendment is allowed, 
certain admissions made would be allowed to be taken awa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.