LexSUMESH SINGH versus PHOOLAN DEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 5 S.C.R. 996 SUMESH SINGH v. PHOOLAN DEVI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 r. 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Permissibility of - Held: Not C permissible when party to the suit seeks to resile from his statement made in earlier part of proceedings - On facts, amendment of plaint allowed by trial Court, which was not challenged - Application for amendment of written statement allowed - Revision petition by plaintiff - Dismissed - On o appeal, Held: High Court did not err in holding that defendant had right to file amended written statement to the amended plaint. Pending suit, plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plaint which was allowed. Thereafter, E respondent-defendant filed an application for amendment of written statement which was allowed. Appellant filed revision petition before High Court which was dismissed holding that as the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff was allowed which was not challenged, the < f F defendants had a right to file an amended written statement to the amended plaint. It was also observed that the sit_id right to file amended written statement to the amended plaint is independent of any right which might accrue to the respondent to file an amended statement G pursuant to the permission granted to do so in an application seeking amendment of the written statement. Henc;e the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 996 SUMESH SINGH v. PHOOLAN DEVI & ORS. 997 --+ HELD:1. It is true that ordinarily, an amendment of A pleadings should not be allowed by reason whereof a party to the suit would resile from the admission made by him in the same proceedings at an earlier stage. In this case, however, the averments made in the plaint were merely been denied. There was no categorical or B unequivocal admission as such. It was, thus, not a case where a party to the suit is resiling from his statement made in the earlier part of the proceedings. The trial Court, in a case of this nature, had not or could not have taken recourse to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 3 and c Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. An issue was framed by and between the plaintiff and the contesting defendant. The said issue was required to be determined and parties were required to adduce evidence thereupon. [Paras 9 and 10j [1003-F; 1004-B, CJ D Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetty & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 85, relied on. 2. The proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, was added by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f 1.7.2002. By reason of E Section 16(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, the amendments carried out therein would only apply in respect of the suits which were filed thereafter. As the suit was filed in the year 1999, the proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 would not F apply. [Paras 11 and 12) [1004-D; 1004-F] State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council (2007) 1 sec 765, relied on. 3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this G case, no useful purpose would be served in interfering ~ with the impugned judgment at this stage particularly having regard to the observations made by the High Court. [Para 13) [1004-G] H 998 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 5 S.C.R. Case Law Reference: (2008) 7 sec 85 relied on (2007) 1 sec 765 relied on Page 8 Page 9 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.10.2007 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.M.P. No.19 of 2006. c P.S. Rana and Devendra Singh for the Appellant. Not represented for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D 5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The defendant in a suit praying for a decree to set aside a deed of sale purported to have been executed by the 8th respondent (original defendant No.2) as a Power of Attorney E holder of the original plaintiff (her father), is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dismissing a revision application filed before it from an order dated 20.12.2005 of the learned trial judge allowing an F application for amendment of the written statement filed by the 8th respondent. 3. The following facts are not disputed : The original plaintiff Sh. Babu was the owner of the suit G land. He executed a Power of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.