KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA AND ORS. versus LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 09-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA AND ORS. 
v. 
LILA VA TI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 2007 
[TARUN CHATrERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBR.AMANY AN, JJ.] 
Interim Order: 
Trial Court passed orders declining amendmen.t of the plaint, striking 
out portions of the written statement of defendants I I to I 3 and striking out 
portions of the Chief-Examination of the plaintiff}rom the affidavit tendered 
in that behalf-Writ petitions u/s Art. 227-High Court admitted the petitions 
and issued notice, but declined to grant interim stay of operation of the 
orders passed by Trial Court-Interference py Supreme Court-Scope of-
Held: Supreme Court not to interfere with each (Jnd every interim order 
D passed by High Court-But, there may be occasions when Supreme Court is 
called upon to step in, in its corrective jurisdiction-In the present case, no 
·reason to stay operation of the order refusing amendment of the plaint-Such 
order of stay would be meaningless since as of now there is no amendment 
of the plaint and an amendment would come into existence only if the High 
E Court finds it a crue where interference is called for-But, the stay of operation 
of the orders striking out portions of the written statements of defendant 
Nos. I I to I 3 and part of the chief-examination in the affidavit tendered by 
the plaintiff would be justified since in case High Court were to accept the 
challenge to those orders of the Trial Court, it would mean that the witnesses 
will have to .be recalled and questions put t@ them on those aspects now 
F struck out to cover those aspects and this would inconvenience the tria/-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227. 
In a suit relating to administration of trust, the Trial Court passed 
orders striking out portions of the written statement of defendants 11 to 13 
as also a portion ·or the affidavit of Examination-in-chief filed by the plaintiff. 
G Confronteq with the order striking out a portion of her affidavit evidence in 
Chief Examination, plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint 
But the application was dismissed. All the said orders of Trial Court were 
•
challenged by filing writ petitions before the High Court under Article 227 
\ 
of the Constitution. High Court admitted the writ petitions and issued notice, 
H 
86 
j 
/ 
KISHORKIRTILALMElff Av. LILAVA"f! KIRTILALMEIITAMEDICAL TRUST 
87 
but declined to stay the operation of the respective orders of the Trial Court. 'A 
In appeals to this Court, the appellants (plaintiff and defendants 11 to 
13) contended that having admitted the challenge to the orders of the Trial 
Court, the High Court was not justified in declining to stay the operation of 
the respective orders. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It is not for this Court to interfere with each and every interim 
order passed by the High Court. But, there may be occasions when this Court 
B 
is called upon to step in, in its corrective jurisdiction. But that will depend 
upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case and they may be rare. C 
While therefore normally this Court should not interfere with the refusal to 
grant a stay by the High Court in a particular proceeding, it cannot be assumed 
that this Court will never do so whatever be the circumstances. Whether an 
appropriate circumstance exists in this case, is another matter. 
(Para 10) (92-D-E) 
2. There is no merit in the apprehension that a grant of stay by this 
Court would send a wrong signal to the High Court. Merely because this Court 
passes an order of stay in the circumstances of a case deviating from what 
the High Court has done, it cannot be expected that the High Court will 
suddenly find merit in the matter pending before it and it will be guided by 
D 
the interim order passed by this Court. (Para 11) (92-C; 93-A) 
E 
3. In the present case, there is no reason to stay the operation of the 
order refusing the amendment of the plaint. Such order of stay would be 
meaningless since as of now there is no amendment of the plaint and ·an 
amendment would come into existence only if the High Court finds it a case 
where interference is called for in the light of the relevant arguments that F 
may be raised before it But, the stay of operation of the orders striking out 
portions of the written statements of defendant No.11, 12 and 13 and part of 
the chief-examination in the affidavit tendered by the plaintitTwould be justified 
since in case the High Court were to a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.