N. C. BANSAL versus UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
N. C. BANSAL
v.
UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 882 of 2018)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 –
Whether in the pending suit in question, the two Courts below were
justified in dismissing the three applications filed by the plaintiff (i)
application u/Or.7, r.14 for filing of documents; (ii) application u/
Or.6, r.17 seeking amendment in the plaint; (iii) application seeking
directions against the respondents for production of some original
documents – Held: The two applications filed by appellant under
Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 should have been allowed and he should
have been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional
documents – For the reason that Firstly, the suit is still at initial
stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the proposed
amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit;
Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the
plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the trial
Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years
it was sub judice in appeal – It is only after the Appellate court
remanded the case to the trial Court for its trial, the appellant filed
the applications in the suit – Fourthly, the Courts, in these
circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed
amendment – Insofar, as the third application for production of
documents is concerned, no argument advanced by the appellant,
therefore, order of its rejection upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  On perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the
two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) under Or.6, r.17
and Or.7, r.14 should have been allowed and he should have been
permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents.
[Para 17][357-C]
1.2  It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 353
353
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the
proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the
nature of suit; Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have
been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been
dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages
and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal.  It is only after
the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its
trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and
sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents
in support thereof;  Fourthly, the Courts, in these circumstances,
should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.
So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application
too should have been allowed on the same grounds.  When the
suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when
the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents
themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why
the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them. [Paras 18,
19][357-D-G]
2.  So far as the third application for production of documents
by the respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by
the appellant.  Therefore, the order of its rejection by the two
Courts below is upheld.  The two applications filed by the
appellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the
other under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed, however,
subject to the appellant paying cost of the respondents. [Paras
20, 22][357-H; 358-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.882 of
2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in  CMM No.1223 of  2016
Shantanu Bansal, Nitin Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shrish Kumar Misra, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment
and order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
Delhi in CM(M) No. 1223 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed
the petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016 in
Civil Suit No.7930 of 2016.
3. In order to decide the short question, it is not necessary to set
out the facts in detail and mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.
4. 

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