THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MODERN TENT HOUSE & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 16-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 539 
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
v. 
MODERN TENT HOUSE & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.3845 of2008) 
AUGUST 16,2017 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Or. 6 r. 17 - Amendment 
of pleadings - Application for amendment in the written statement 
539 
A 
B 
to the money suit u/Or. 6 r. 17. by the appellants-defendants -
C 
Rejection of. by courts below - Justification of- Held: Proposed 
amendment is sought to elaborate the facts originally pleaded in 
the written statement; it is in the nature of amplification of the defense 
already taken; no prejudice would be caused to the respondents-
plaintiffe if the amendment is allowed, because the initial burden to 
prove the case continues to remain on the plaintiffe; and since the 
D 
trial is not yet completed, it is in the interest of justice that the 
proposed amendment should have been allowed by the court below 
rather than to allow the defendants to raise such pleas at the 
appellate stage - Thus, the application filed by the defendants u/ 
Or. 6 r. 17 is allowed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3845 
of2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2006 passed by 
the High Court of Patna in C.R. No. 1249 of2005. 
Shreyas Jain, Gopal Singh, Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv .. Braj Kishore Mishra, Ms. Apama Jha, 
Arup Banerjee, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by 
G 
the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 17.04.2006 
-Jassed by the High Court of Patna in C.R. No. 1249 of 2005 whereby 
ie High Court disposed of the civil revision filed by the appellants herein 
hile giving them liberty to raise such question in appeal in case the 
cision of the Trial Court goes against them. 
H 
539 
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Facts of the case need not be mentioned in detail except to 
the extent necessary for the disposal of this appeal. 
3. The respondents (plaintiffs) have filed a moneysuit (Suit No.28 
of 2002) in the' Court of sub-Judge-I Chhabra againstthe appellants 
(defendants) for recovery ofRs.41,59,418/-. The appellants filed their 
B 
written statement and denied therein the respondents' claim by joining 
issues on facts. Issues have accordingly been framed on the basis of the 
pleadings. It appears that the evidence of respondents (plaintiffs) is over 
and that of the appellants (defendants) remains. 
4. The appellants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of 
c the Code of Civil Procedure 19Q8 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") 
seeking amendment in their written statement by adding two Paragraphs 
in their written statement. The respondents (plaintiffs) opposed the 
application. 
5. The Trial Court dismissed the application and the High Court 
D 
in revision filed by the appellants upheld the dismissal giving rise to filing 
of this appeal by the defendants. 
6. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the two 
Courts below were justified in rejecting the appellants' (defendants) 
application for amendment sought in their written statement under Order 
E 
6 Rule 17 of the Code? 
7. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the respondents against 
the appellants out of which this appeal arises is still pending. It is also not 
in dispute that the evidence of the parties is not yet over. In other words, 
the trial in the suit is going on. 
F 
8. We have perused the amendment application filed by'the 
appellants. We find that firstly, the proposed amendment is on facts and 
the appellants in substance seek to elaborate the facts originally pleaded 
in the written statement; secondly and in other words, it is in the nature 
of amplification of the defense already taken; thirdly, it does not introduce --
G any new defense compared to what has originally been pleaded in the 
written statement; fourthly, if allowed, it would neither result in changing-
the defense already taken nor will result in withdrawing any kind ol---
admission, if made in the written statement; fifthly, there is no prejudic--
to the plaintiffs, if such amendment is allowed because notwithstandin---
the defense or/and the proposed amendment, the initial burden to proi 
H 
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. MODERN TENT HOUSE & 
541 
ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
the case continues to remain on the plaintiffs; and lastly, since the trial is 
A 
not yet completed, it is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.