M/S CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus MANOHAR LAL

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 10-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 1 S.C.R. 923 
MIS CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
MANOHAR LAL 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2343-2344of2017) 
FEBRUARY 10,2017 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r. 17 and Or. VII, r. 
14(3) - Applications under, rlw. s. 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control 
Act. 2001 - Seeking amendment of eviction petition and seeking 
permission to file additional documents in support of the amendment 
sought - Applications filed after conclusion of evidence -
Applications dismissed by courts below - On appeal, held: The 
amendment proposed and permission sought for filing additional 
documents deserved to he allowed - Though there was delay in 
filing the applications, but the delay has been duly explained -
Pleadings can be amended at any stage not only during pendency 
of trial, but also at the first and second appellate stage, provided 
the amendment proposed is bonafide, relevalll and necessary for 
deciding the rights of the parties - Filing of additional evidence is 
permissible u!Or. VII, r. 14(3) CPC at the stage of trial and u!Or. 
XIV, r. 27 CPC at the first and second appellate stage with the leave 
of the court - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - s. 21. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The amendment proposed by the appellant so 
also the permission sought for filing additional documents 
deserved to be allowed. It is for the reasons that firstly, the 
amendment proposed did not change the nature of the case 
originally set up by the appellant in the eviction petition; secondly, 
the amendment did not introduce any fresh cause of action; thirdly, 
the amendment was relevant for deciding the question of 
subletting and availability of alternative accommodation with the 
respondent; fourthly, the facts proposed in the amendment not 
being in the personal knowledge of the appellant and having 
obtained from the concerned State Department recently, the same 
could be allowed to be brought on record for its consideration; 
923 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
924 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20 I 7] I S.C.R. 
fifthly, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the respondent, if 
the applications had been allowed because the respondent in such 
eventuality would have got an opportunity to make consequential 
amendment in his written statement and file additional documents 
in rebuttal; and lastly, in order to prove the case, the amendment 
proposed and permission to file documents should have been 
granted. [Para 16] [928-B-D] 
2. It is true that there was some delay on the part of the 
appellant in filing the applications, but, the appellant had explained 
the delay. One cannot dispute that in appropriate cases, the parties 
are permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage not only duriug 
the peudency of the trial but also at the first and second appellate 
stage with the leave of the Court provided the amendment 
proposed is bon(I fide, relevant and necessary for deciding the 
rights of the parties invoh;ed in the tis. The law also permits the 
parties to file additional evidenc~ at any stage of the trial (Order 
7 Rule 14 (3) CPC) including at the first or/and second appellate 
Stage (Order 41Rule27 CPC) with the leave of the Court provided 
a case is made out to seek such indulgence. [Paras 17, 18] [928-
E-F] 
. . 
. 
. 
. . 
3. As a consequence, the applications made by the 
appellant for amendment of the eviction petition and the 
application made for filing additional documents are allowed and 
the documents, as prayed for, are allowed to be taken on record. 
To meet the ends of justice, the respondent shall pay cost of 
Rs.1500/- to the appellant. [Para 21] [929-A-B] 
Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy 
& Sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 : [2009] 15 
SCR 103 ~ relied on. 
Case Law Referennce 
[2009] 15 SCR 103 
relied on 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2343-
2344 of20 I 7. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2015 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in S. B. Civil 
Writ Petition Nos. 4088 and 4089of2014. 
MIS CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. 
925 
MANOHAR LAL 
Ms. Shobha, Bonny, Adv. for the Appellant. 
A 
Shadan Farasat, T. E. Jaswita, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The' Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, -J. I.· Leave; granted. 
2. These appeals.are. filed,against the final judgment and·order·· · B 
dated 08.01.2() 15 passed by the 

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