M/S. ESTRALLA RUBBER versus DASS ESTATE (PVT.) LTD.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 12-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MIS. ESTRALLA RUBBER 
v. 
DASS ESTATE (PVT.) LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: 
Order VJ Rule 17-Scope and ambit o.f-Amendment of pleading rejected 
by Trial Court on the ground that the proposed amendment was inconsistent 
and had the effect of displacing the plaintiff from admission-On· revision 
amendment was allowed-Plaintiff.filed writ petition-High Court set aside the 
order made on revision application-On appeal, held: amendments in pleading 
are for proper adjudication o.f controversy and to avoid multiplicity of 
proceeding-Mere delay in.filing amendment application when no prejudice to 
other party to take away accrued right, should not be a ground for rejecting 
such application-Principles applicable to amendment o.f plaint equally 
applicable to amendment o.f written statement. 
Constitution of India : 
Article 227-Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held, High Court is not vested 
with unlimited power to correct wrong and hardship of all kinds-Power to 
interfere with the order o.f the Subordinate Courts-Restricted to cases of 
serious dereliction o.f duty and.fl.agrant violation n.ffundamental principles o.f · 
law or justice-Power (:an be exercised if.finding isperverse or no evidence to 
justify it. 
The appellant-defendant in the original suit for eviction, filed an 
application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The Trial 
Court rejected application for amendment holding that the proposed 
amendment would be inconsistent and it will have the effect of displacing 
plaintiff from admission made by the defendant; Aggrieved, defendant 
filed revision application u/s. 115-A of C.P.C. The Distt. Judge reversed the 
order and allowed amendment application. 
Plaintiff filed Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge. Hence this 
H 
appeal. 
68 
-
MIS. ESTRALLA RUBBER v. DASS ESTATE (PVT.) LTD. 
69 
The appellant contended that the High Court was not justified in 
exercising power under Art. 227 as an appellate or a revisional Court as 
power under this Article as conferred is one of Superintendence, the 
defendant did not want to withdraw admission made in favour of plaintiff, 
amendment was only to support the defence already taken by elaboration 
and no prejudice would be caused; in fact amendment was necessary to 
adjudicate the dispute and to avoid further litigation. 
Respondent contended that by the proposed amendment, de~endant 
has taken inconsistent plea and wanted to take away the effect of admission 
from plaintiff. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. On perusal of records, it is seen that no admission made 
by the defendant was sought to be withdrawn. It is not shown how the 
proposed amendment prejudiced the case of plaintiff. The proposed 
amendments are required for proper adjudication of the controversy 
between the parties and also to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings; 
merely because there was delay in making the amendment application, 
when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused. So as to take away 
any accrued right of the Plaintiff the amendment application could not be 
rejected. [72-B-C; D-E] 
2. The exercise of Power under Art. 227 involves a duty on the High 
Court to see that the inferior Courtsffribunals function within bounds of 
their authority to discharge duty in a legal manner and not vested with 
unlimited prerogative, to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions 
made within the limits of jurisd"iction of the Subordinate Courts or 
Tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the 
Courts or Tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and 
flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or Justice. Further 
High Court under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate 
Court to substitute its own Judgment. It can set aside or ignore the findings 
of the facts of inferior Courtsffribunals, if there is no evidence to justify 
the same or if the' finding is perverse. [72-H; 73-A; B-C] 
Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ramtahel Ramanand and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Ors., AIR (1972) SC 1598; Wal}·am Singh & Am: v. Amamath & Am:, [1954) 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
SCR 565; Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Am:, Am 
(1975) SC 1297, relied on. 
3. It is fairly settled in law
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.