LexMOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA versus ROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 231 MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA v. ROOP RANI MEHRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 19977 of 2017) DECEMBER 11, 2017 [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VT rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Permissibility - Suit for partition of property - After framing of issues, application A B for amendment of pleadings - Seeking share in sale proceeds of C another property - The court instead of deciding the application asked the parties tlJ lead evidence - Evidence was led and suit was fixed for fi11ul disposal -- Court ordered that the application would be considered at final hearing of suit - Application for amendment of issues dismissed - Pursuant to direction of Superior Court, D amendment application was considered and rejected on the ground that the amendment application was time barred because limitation for suit for recovery of money is three years from the date of the sale - Writ petition dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Proviso to r. 17 of Order VT prohibits entertainment of amendment application after commencement of trial - Trial of a suit commences E after issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin, is to produce evidence - In the present case though technically the trial had commenced, but actually the application was filed before the evidence was led - No prejudice can be said to have been caused to defendant because evidence F was led subsequent ·to filing of the application - Thus, in the present case no bar was created by the proviso to consider the application - The determination as to whether the claim could be held to be barred by time could have been decided only after considering the evidence - It was too early to come to the conclusion that limitation was only three years and not twelve years as claimed by the plain- G tiff - Amendment application allowed - Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 110. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Although Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendment in the pleadings "at any stage of the proceedings", H 231 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. A but a limitation has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the effect that no application for amendment shall be aliowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court's jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the B c matter before the commen~ement of trial. [Para 9] [239-C-D] 1.2 Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with "Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses". Issues are framed under Order XIV. Order XV deals with "Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing", when it appears that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or a fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of suit commences. [Para 9] [239-E-F] Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 409 : [2008] 17 SCR 505 - relied on. D 1.3 In the present case, issues were framed and case was fixed for recording of evidence of plaintiff. Plaintiff did not pro- duce the evidence and took adjournment and in the meantime filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 or 17. Thereafter the Court granted four week's time as the last opportunity to file the examination-in-chief. Thus technically trial commenced when E the date was fixed for leading evidence by the plaintiff but actu- ally the amendment application was filed before the evidence was led by the plaintiff. The parties led evidence after the amendment application was filed. [Paras 10 and 11] [240-B-C, F] 1.4 The Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 prohibited entertain- F ment of amendment application after commencement of the trial with the object and purpose that once parties proceed with the leading of evidence, no new pleading be permitted to be intro- duced. The present is a case where actually before parties could lead evidence, the amendment application had been filed and from G the order dated 14.02.2014, it is clear that the plaintiff's case is that parties had led evidence even on the amended pleadings and plaintiff's cases was that in view of the fact that the parties led evidence on amended pleadings, the allowing the amendment was mere formality. The defendant in no manner !.'"!I. be said to be prejudiced by the amendments since
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.