LexOLYMPIC INDUSTRIES versus MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 10 S.C.R. 338 A OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES -1- v. .- MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4148-4149 of 2009) B JULY 7, 2009 [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] ~. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: c Or.8, r.9 - Subsequent pleadings - Additional written statement - Held: Even by filing an amendment or additional written statement, it is open to defendant to add a new ground of defence or to substitute or alter the defence or even to take - inconsistent pleas in the written statement so long as the D pleadings do not result in causing grave injuries/irretrievable A., prejudice to plaintiff - Mere def Py is not sufficient to refuse amendment of pleadings or an additional written statement - High Court was not justified in rejecting tenant's application for permission to file additional written statement, as no E prejudice could be caused to landlord which would otherwise be compensated in terms of cost - Order of High Court set aside and that of tribunals below allowing to file additional WS is restored - Additional WS field by tenant be accepted - ~. Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 - ' - s.25. F TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT) CONTROL Act, 1960: s.25 - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Filing of G additional written statement allowed by Rent Controller and Appellate Tribunal - Order reversed by High Court - Held: ~ In absence of any perversity or arbitratriness in the concurrent orders of the tribunals below, it was not open to High Court to intetfere with the same - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 8, .T H r.9. 338 OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES v. MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI 339 MULLA AKBERALLY .. ~ In a petition by landlord-respondents seeking fixation A ...... of fair rent, the tenant-appellant moved an application for permission to file an additional written statement. The Rent Controller allowed the application. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order. However, the High·Court, in the revision petition filed by the landlord, set aside the B concurrent orders of the tribunals below and rejected the -"'- tenant's application on the grounds that the tenant filed the application belatedly when the examination of PW1 had already been over; and that in the additional WS a new plea was raised, which was a fundamental alteration c of the pleading~ already put forth in the WS. Allowing the appeals of the tenant, the Court ,.-J, HELD: 1.1. Mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional D written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional written statement which could easily be compensated by cost. That apart, the delay in filing the E additional written statement has been properly explained by the appellant. Even if the examination of PW-1 or his .,J,. cross-examination was over, then also, it was open to the .. ,.. court to accept the additional written statement filed by the appellant by awarding some cost against the F appellant. [Para 7] [343-G-H; 344-A-B; 345-H; 346-A] 1.2. Even by filing an amendment or additional written statement, it is open to the defendant to add a new ground of defence or substituting or altering the defen?:e · G ~ or even taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement as long as the pleadings do not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff or displacing him completely. [Para 7] [344-G-H; 345-A] H 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A Usha Ba/asaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami ~ ... & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602, relied on. ..... 1.3. It is well settled that courts should be more generous in allowing the amendment of written statement B than in the case of plaint._ \!\lhile allowing additional written statement or refusin~ to accept the same, the court should only see that if such additional written statement is not accepted, the real controversy between ~- the parties could not be decided. In the instant case, by c filing additional written statement, no injustice/prejudice would be caused to the respondents, but that would help the court to decide the real controversy between the parties. [Para 7] [346-A-C] 2.1. The High Court in exercise of its revisional D jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, coul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.