SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN versus MANOJ KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 944 
i,.. 
A 
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN 
v. 
"' 
MANOJ KUMAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3236 of 2009) 
MAY 05, 2009 
i-
B 
~ 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
I 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
:: 
' 
c 
Or.6, r.17 -Application of tenant for amendment of written 
statement - Rejected by Rent Controller on the ground that 
~ 
by such amendment tenant would be permitted to withdraw his 
.--
admissions made in W. S. - Held : Admission made by a 
i 
I 
defendant in his W S. can be explained by filing an application 
D 
for amendment - East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act - s. 13. 
i 
t 
Or. 6, r. 17, proviso - Amendment of written statement -
Commencement of trial - Held : Since neither issues have 
been framed nor documents have been filed nor evidence 
has yet been adduced, proviso to r.17 would not.be applicable 
E 
as trial has not commenced - Rent Control and Eviction. 
In the eviction proceeding initiated against the 
appellant tenant, he filed an application for amendment 
~ 
of the written statement. The Rent Controller rejected the 
-~ 
F 
application, inter alia, on the ground that in the event such 
amendment being allowed, the tenant would be permitted 
to withdraw his admissions made in the origi~al written 
statement which was ~ot permissible in law. The revision 
petition of the tenant having been rejected by the High 
r 
G Court, he filed the appeal. 
,__ 
" 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court as well as the Rent 
·Controller acted illegally and with material irregularity in 
H 
944 
1 
I 
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN v. MANOJ KUMAR & ANR. 
945 
the exercise of their jurisdiction in not allowing the 
A 
· application for amendment of the written statement of the 
appellant. [Para 13] [951-G-H; 952-A] 
1.2. A careful reading of the application for 
amendment would show that the appellant seeks only to 
9 
elaborate and clarify the earlier inadvertence and 
confusion made in his written statement. Even assuming 
that there was admission made by the appellant in his 
original written statement, then also, such admission can 
be explained by amendment of the written statement C 
even by taking inconsistent pleas substituting or altering 
the defence. [Para 9] [950-F.:.G] 
1.3. An amendment of a plaint and that of a written 
·statement are not necessarily governed by. exactly the 
same principle, and courts would be more liberal in D 
allowing amendment of a written statement than that of 
a plaint. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting 
or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in a 
written statement does not raise the same problem as 
adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action. [Para 
E 
10) [950-G-H; 951-A] 
Baldev Singh & Ors. vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. AIR 2006 
SC 2832 and Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran 
Appaso Swami & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1663 and Panchadeo 
·Narain Srivastava vs. K. Jyoti Sahay AIR 1983 SC 462, 
F 
relied on. 
1.4. In view of the decision in Baldev Singh and in 
view of the admitted fact that in the instant case, not even 
the issues have yet been framed, documents have not G 
yet been filed, evidence has not yet been adduced, the 
proviso to r. 17 of Or 6 of the Code of Civil ProcP.dure, 
1908 has· no manner of application, as the trial has not 
yet commenced. [Para 15 and 16] [953-A-B] 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. 
· A 
1.5. The order of the High Court and that of the Rent 
Controller are set aside. The application for amendment 
of the written statement is allowed. The Rent Controller 
is directed to permit amendment of the written statement 
and thereafter proceed with the hearing of the eviction 
B proceedings. [Para 17] [953-B-D] 
· 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 2006 SC 2832 
AIR 2007 SC 1663 
AIR 1983 SC 462 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 10 
Para 11 
Para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3236 of 2009. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.07.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 
3700 of 2008. 
Shaian Sethi and Aribam Guneshwar Sharma for the 
E Appellants. 
F 
Daya Krishan Sharma and Monika Sharma for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th of 
July, 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3700 
G of 2008, by which the Civil Revision case filed by the te

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