Application to file additional documents and amendment to plaint, appeal allowed by Supreme Court
January 27, 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges, Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre dismissed the appeal filed in N.C. Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 882 of 2018.
The question involved in the appeal is whether the two Courts below were
justified in dismissing the three applications filed by the plaintiff in a
pending suit, namely, (i) application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code for
filing of documents, (ii) application under Order 6 Rule17 of the Code seeking
amendment in the plaint, and (iii) application seeking directions against the
respondents for production of some original documents. The appellant (plaintiff)
has filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 252/2005 now renumbered as (C.S. No
7930/2016) against the respondents (defendants) in the Court of JSCC-Cum ASCJ-cum
Guardian Judge (West) Delhi.
The respondents have filed their written statement and denied the appellant's
claim set up in the plaint. The respondents, however, also raised certain legal
objections regarding the maintainability of the appellant's suit. The Trial
Court upheld the objections raised by the respondent and accordingly dismissed
the appellant's suit vide judgment/decree dated 20.09.2011 in the initial stage
itself as not maintainable.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal being R.C.A. 121/14/11 before the
Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. By order dated
20.11.2014, the first Appellate Court allowed the appellant's appeal and while
setting aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court remanded the case to the
Trial Court for deciding
the suit on merits.
It appears that the respondents (defendants) did not take up the matter to the
High Court against the order of the first Appellate Court and, therefore, the
case has now gone back to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in the suit.
After remand, the appellant (plaintiff), as mentioned above, filed three
applications in his pending suit. One was under Order 7 Rule 14 of Code seeking
permission to file some additional documents, second was an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint and the third application was
for a direction to the respondents for production of some original documents.
The respondents (defendants) opposed the applications filed by the appellant.
The Trial Court by order dated 21.09.2016 dismissed the applications filed by
the appellant (plaintiff).
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in the High Court of Delhi. By impugned order, the Single
Judge dismissed the appellant's (plaintiff’s) writ petition and upheld the order
of the Trial Court. Against the said order, the appellant (plaintiff) has felt
aggrieved and filed this appeal by special leave in this Court questioning its
legality and correctness.
The court said that "It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still
at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Second, the proposed
amendment ought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the
applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly
because the suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in
its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is
only after the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its
trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought
permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof;
Fourth, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing
the proposed amendment. So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this
application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have
allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its
initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are
alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI,
there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them."
"So far as the third application for production of documents by the
respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant. We, therefore, uphold the order of its rejection by the two
Courts below. In other words, our order is confined to consideration of only two
applications mentioned above."
The Court allowed the aforementioned two prayers and directed to pay Rs. 10000/-
cost to the defendants and disposed of the appeal.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in N.C. Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation & Anr 25.1.2018