PREM BAKSHI AND ORS. versus DHARAM DEV AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 09-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-' 
PREM BAKSHI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DHARAM DEV AND ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 2002 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section I I 5 and Order 6 Rule I 7-Revisionary Jurisdiction-Exercise 
of-Suit for declaration and injunction-Amendment sought only to bring to C 
the notice of the Court some subsequent facts-Trial Court allowed the 
application but High Court set it aside-On appeal held, such amendment 
to pleadings would not cause any failure of justice or irreparable injury to 
any party-Hence High Court erred in allowing the revision. 
The suit land was mortgaged to two persons and on the death of the D 
mortgagor, respondent No. 1 got his name mutated in the revenue record. 
Appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to S, the legal heirs of the mortgagee filed 
suit for declaration of joint ownership of the land and permanent injunction 
restraining respondent No. 1 from alienating the suit land. Subsequently, 
appellant learnt from the suit filed by respondent No. I that the suit land was E 
sold by the mortgagor to the mortgagee adjusting the mortgaged amount and 
also that father of respondent No. 1 had filed a pre-emption suit which was 
decreed in 1943 with a condition of payment of certain amount to the mortgagee 
by the father of respondent No. I and in case of non-payment, the suit would 
stand dismissed. Thereafter, appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 
17 CPC for amendment in the suit that as the amount directed by the Court F 
was not paid, there was no decree for pre-emption and the suit stood dismissed. 
Trial Court allowed the amendment application. However, High Court 
dismissed it. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1 In the instant case amendment order being an interlocutory 
order is revisable under Section 115 CPC, but for exercising powers under 
this section by the High Court, the order must satisfy one of the conditions 
mentioned in clause (a) i.e. the order made would have finally disposed of the 
suit or other proceeding or (b) the said order would occasion a failure of justice 
103 
G 
H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made, of the proviso 
to sub-section (1) to Section 115. [107-B-q 
1.2. If a trial court holds by an interlocutory order that it has no 
jurisdiction to proceed the case or that suit is barred by limitation, it would 
B 
amount to finally deciding the case and such order would be revisable. The 
order in question by which the amendment was allowed could not be said to 
have finally disposed of the case and, therefore, it would not come under clause 
(a). (107-D-E] 
;-
1.3. Mere amendments of pleadings cannot possibly cause failure of 
.... 
c 
justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps refusal to permit the 
amendment sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of 
justice. After all amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions 
i
on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side 
as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence a situation cannot be 
l
envisaged where amendment, of pleadings whatever be the nature of such 
D amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irrepara)Jle injury 
... 
to any party. [107-F-G) 
,.. 
1.4. On facts by the amendment in the plaint, appellants only wanted to 
bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent facts such that respondent 
No. 1 would get opportunity to file written statement and he would be able to 
E raise all his defence. It cannot be said that the proposed amendment if allowed 
would cause irreparable injury or failure of justice as the remedy of the 
respondent No. 1 is by way of an appeal. Therefore, the order allowing the 
( 
amendment would not come under clause (b) and the High Court erred in law 
in interfering with the order of the trial court allowing the prayer for 
r 
F 
amendment of the plaint. [107-H; 108-A-B] 
Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig, F.J. Dillon, AIR (1964) SC 497 = [1964) 4 
SCR 409, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 104 of2002. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.R. No. 1284of1999. 
>--
Mala Goel and Rajinder Mathur for the Appellants. 
S.D. Sharma, Balbir Singh Gupta and Rajeev Sharma for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-· 
PREM BAKSHI v. DHARAM DEV [PHUKAN, J.] 
105 
PHUKAN

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