LexS. MALLA REDDY versus M/S. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 6 S.C.R. 230 S. MALLA REDDY v. M/S. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3914 OF 2013) APRIL 18, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. IQBAL, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, rr.16 and 17 and C Or. VIII, r.9 - Suit for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction - Petition filed by the defendants-appellants ul Or. VI, r. 17 seeking amendment of the written statement - Challenge to - Held: The relief sought for by the defendants in the petition u/Or. VI r. 17 was elaborately dealt with in two D earlier pelitions filed by defendants u!Or. VI, r. 16 and Or. VIII, r.9 which came to be rejected - Filing of petition by the defendants u/Or. VI, r. 17 after about 13 years when the hearing of the suit had already commenced and some of the witnesses were examined, was wholly misconceived - Filing E of subsequent application for the same relief was an abuse of the process of the Court - Abuse of Court. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r.16 and Or. VI, r. 17 - Distinction between - Discussed. F The plaintiff-respondent Society filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from interfering with possession. The defendants filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and praying G to the court to decree the suit. Subsequently, the defendants filed petition under Order VI Rule 16 CPC praying that the earlier written statement be struck out since the same was against their interests. Another petition was filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule H 230 S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO- 231 OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY 9 and Order VI Rule 5 of CPC seeking leave of the court A to permit them to file a detailed written statement. The trial court dismissed both the petitions holding that the defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to substitute their written statement in the suit whereunder there was an admission of the claim of the plaintiff-Society. The B defendant- appellants challenged the said order but lost the claim upto this Court. Thereafter, the defendants- appellants filed petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. The amendment petition was allowed by the trial court and c against that the plaintiff-Society preferred revision petitions. The High Court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order of the trial court, and therefore the instant appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court D HELD: 1. Order VI Rule 16 CPC deals with the amendment or striking out of the pleadings, which a party desires to be made in his opponent's pleadings. In other words, the plaintiff or the defendant may ask the court for E striking out pleadings of his opponent on the ground that the pleadings are shown to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. This Rule is based on the principle of ex debito justitia. The court is empowered under this. Rule to strike out any matter in the pleadings that F appears to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which tends to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit. On the other hand, Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow either party to alter or amend his own pleading and on such application G the court may allow the parties to amend their pleadings subject to certain conditions enumerated in the said Rule. [Para 22 and 23] [249-E-H; 250-A] 2. In the instant case, although the defendant- appellants filed the petition for striking out their own H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R. A pleading i.e. written statement, labelling the petition as under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, but in substance the application was dealt with as if under Order VI Rule 17 CPC inasmuch as the trial court discussed the facts of the cas,e and did not permit the defendants to substitute B the written statement whereunder there was an admission of the suit claim of the plaintiff-Society. The trial court while rejecting the aforementioned petition held that the defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to substitute their earlier written statement filed in the suit C whereunder there was an admission of the claim of the plaintiff-Society (respondent). Similarly in the revision filed by the defendants, the High Court considered all the decisions r~erred by the defendants on the issue as to whether
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.