STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 17-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 140 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009 
in 
Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 
AUGUST 17, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
C 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order XXVI, Rule 8 -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI, Rule 17 -
Amendment of pleadings - Central Government issued 
Notifications/Orders u/ss.58(3) & 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Re-organisation Act (MPR Act), notifying the date of 
D dissolution of the M.P. Electricity Board (MPEB) and 
apportioning its assets, rights c..nd liabilities between 
successor Electricity Boards for the reorganized States of 
Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh '."'" The State of Madhya 
Pradesh approached Supreme Court invoking original 
E jurisdiction u!Article 131 of the Constitution and praying that 
the said Notifications/Orders be declared null and void for 
being arbitrary, unjust and unfair - 5 years later, the plaintiff-
State filed amendment application, praying for incorporation 
of additional relief in the plaint viz. to declare ss.58(3) & 58(4) 
F of the MPR Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -
Held: Inasmuch as the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh 
approached Supreme Court invoking original jurisdiction u/ 
Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Rules have 
to be applied to the case in hand - Order XXVI, Rule 8 of the 
G Rules (which is similar to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC) prescribes 
that at any stage of the proceedings, the Court may allow 
either party to amend his pleadings - However, it must be 
established that the proposed amendment is necessary for 
the purpose of determining the real question in controversy 
H 
140 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 141 
ANR. 
between the parties - The original plaint proceeds on the A 
basis that exercise of power by the Central Government by 
passing the impugned Notifications ulss.58(3) and 58(4) of 
the MPR Act was arbitrary, unjust and unfair and had resulted 
in serious anomalies in the apportionment of assets and 
liabilities - After praying for such relief, if the amendment as 
B 
sought for by the plaintiff is allowed and the plaintiff is 
permitted to challenge the vires of the said provisions, then 
the very basis on which the plaintiff is claiming its right to 
apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities of the undivided 
Board will cease to be in existence and the entire suit of the c 
plaintiff will be rendered infructuous - Leave to amend ought 
to be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and 
inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental character of 
the suit - Also, the amendment application was filed at a 
belated stage - The plaintiff-State did not assign any reason 
0 
for not taking steps and for waiting for five years - However, 
plaintiff given opportunity to put forth its-stand that the Central 
Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders without 
proper guidelines and affording opportunity to the parties 
concerned - In the interest of justice, plaintiff-State permitted 
E 
to raise such objections at the time of trial - Pleadings -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 131 - Madhya Pradesh 
Re-organisation Act, 2000 - s.58(3) and s.58(4). 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI, Rule 17 -
Purpose and object of - Held: The purpose and object of F 
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party to alter or 
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as 
may be just - Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of 
right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while 
deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical G 
approach - Liberal approach should. be the general rule 
particularly, in cases where the other side can be 
compensated with costs - Normally, amendments are allowed 
in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations - Pleadings. 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
I\ 
Jurisdiction - In regard to questions as to constitutionality 
of Central laws - Power of judicial review of the writ courts -
On facts, plaintiff-State sought to challenge the validity of a 
Central law in a proceeding (suit) initiated under Article 131 
of the Constitution - Held: Normally, for questions relating to 
s validity of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum is 
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the 
Constitution in a writ petition and not an original suit filed 
under Article 131 which vests exclusive jurisdictio

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