M/S PRIME PROPERTIES versus SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 29-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 569
569
M/S PRIME PROPERTIES
v.
SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7181 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Pleadings – Filing of – Suit pending for long, multifarious
incidental proceedings – Subsequent pleadings filed by the plaintiff
in the form of rejoinder taken on record by Trial Court, in
supersession of its earlier order whereby such permission was
declined – Order set aside by High Court – On appeal, held:
Impugned order set aside but the order passed by the Trial Court is
modified – On facts, the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 permitted to place
on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder but
only to the extent of new facts, if any, pleaded in the rejoinder filed
by the plaintiff – Thus, sur-rejoinder to remain confined to any
such fact, if at all, newly pleaded by the plaintiff in the rejoinder –
This particular proposition is required to be adopted in the present
matter, in view of several features and factors including two
significant factors: one, that under the orders passed by Supreme
Court, the trial of the suit is to proceed expeditiously while the matter
ought to be assigned a specific priority; and second, that on
31.01.2022, Trial Court had indeed framed additional issues for
the trial – No further issues are required to be framed in this matter
and all other aspects of the matter, particularly those relating to
pleadings be examined by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal
of the suit – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In this matter, essentially pertaining to the
operation of rules of procedure in the trial of civil suits, the views
as taken by the Trial Court in its order dated 29.11.2021 and the
order dated 29.12.2021 as also the view as taken by the High
Court in its impugned order dated 14.03.2022 carry their own
shortcomings but, appropriate orders are required to be passed
for ensuring proper progression of the suits. In none of the
referred orders i.e., the orders dated 27.11.2021 and 29.12.2021,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
the Trial Court ever adverted to the fundamental aspect as to
what were the facts pleaded by the defendants and what was the
core of pleadings so as to form a specific opinion as to what
pleadings called for rejoinder; if at all rejoinder was to be allowed.
On the other hand, fact of the matter remains that the newly added
defendants had filed written statements on 27.09.2021. Even if
there had been delay in progression of the suit because of variety
of factors and even if a part of those factors could be referable to
the delay on the part of the plaintiff, that cannot take away the
substance of the matter as regards the question as to whether
the prayer for filing rejoinder was to be granted or not. [Paras 8,
9][578-G-H; 579-A-D]
1.2 The other side of relevant factors is that in terms of the
orders passed by this Court commencing from the order dated
08.05.2019, the trial is required to be assigned specific priority.
It has been pointed out that by an order dated 05.06.2022, this
Court in a batch of matters arising out of the same suits, has
ordered that the Trial Court shall be sending specific report as
regards progress of the suits and assign them specific priority so
as to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably before
31.03.2023. A cognate feature of the matter is that the Trial Court
had framed the issues earlier on 19.08.2005; and before passing
of the impugned order by the High Court, the Trial Court had
framed seven additional issues on 31.01.2022.In a comprehensive
consideration of all the relevant factors and features, this appeal
calls for such orders which may be conducive to the purpose of
expeditious proceeding rather than protraction because of the
procedural aspects relating to the filing of the pleadings. At the
same time, balance of the operations of the rules of procedure is
also required to be ensured, so as to avoid any likely prejudice
to any of the parties. [Paras 10, 11][579-D-G]
1.3 The impugned order dated 14.03.2022 is set aside but
the order passed by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021 shall be made
applicable with the modification that in the peculiar circumstance
of this case, the defendant Nos. 4 to 11 shall be permitted to
place on record their further pleadings in the form of sur-rejoinder
but only to the extent of new facts, if any, pl

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