RAJ KUMAR BHATIA versus SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 15-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 531 
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA 
v. 
SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA 
(Civil Appeal No.19400 of2017) 
DECEMBER 15, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r.7 - Amendment of C 
written statement - Permissibility of - Held: In the original written 
statement, the appellant had set up the plea that the property in 
dispute was in the nature of joint family property and that even· 
after the alleged deed of relinquishment, parties were living together 
as members of a joint Hindu family - Thus, the case sought to be set 
up by the appellant in the proposed amendment by introducing an 
D 
averment on the existence of coparcenary!Hindu undivided proper~v, 
was an elaboration of what was stated in the written statement -
The amendment would cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff - High 
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art.227 entered upon the me,rits 
of the case which is impermissible - Whether an amendment should E 
be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed 
to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial - Trial Court in the 
exercise of its jurisdiction had allowed the amendment u/Or. VI, 
r.17 - There was no reason for High Coart to interfere u!Art.227 -
Judgment of the High Court is set aside - Order passed by the Trial 
Court allowing the amendment of the written statement is accordingly 
affirmed - Constitution of India - Art. 227. 
Constitution of India - Art.227 - Power under, of High Court 
F 
- Scope of - Held: The supervisory jurisdiction of High Court 
u/Art.227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or G 
tribunal has proceeded within t.he parameters of its jurisdiction -
In the exercise of its jurisdiction u/A11.227, the High Court does not 
act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to 
review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or 
tribunal has passed an order. 
531 
H 
532 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12017] 12 S.C.R. 
A rclim1uishment deed was executed, in respect of the suit 
property, by the appellant and the respondent in favour of their 
mother 'S''. 'S' permitted the appellant and the res11ondent to 
reside along with her in the property. However, she filed a suit 
iilter a/ia for recovery of possession against the appellant wherein 
the respondent joined as a co-plaintiff. An application was filed 
by the appellant for amendment of the written statement, which 
was allowed. Writ petition filed by the respondent challenging 
the said order was allowed. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the original written statement, the appellant 
had set up the pica that the property in dispute was in the nature 
of joint family property and that even after the alleged deed of 
relinquishment, parties were living together as members of a 
joint hindu family. [Para 10] [537~0] 
1.2 This being the position, the case which was sought to 
be set up in the proposed amendment was an elaboration of what 
was stated in the written statement. The amendment would cause 
no prejudice t-0 the Plaintiff. The High Court has in the exercise 
of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered 
upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the 
appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an 
amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the 
case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at 
the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed 
the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. The 
supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under 
Article 227 is confined only to sec whether an inferior court or 
tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. 
In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High 
Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not 
open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the 
inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court 
had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the 
amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Ruic 17 of 
the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere 
under Article 227. The amendment would cause no prejudice to 
the Plaintiff. [Para 11] [538-E-G; 539-A-BJ 
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA v. SUBHASH CHANDER B.HATIA 
533 
Scul/111a Lodh v. National Insurance Company (2003) 3

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