The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge vide which an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed after impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the Civil Suit. The Court observed that the application which was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint was completely vague in the absence of specific averments therein as to what actually the respondent/plaintiff intended to incorporate in the plaint by way of amendment and where exactly in the plaint the amendments were to be incorporated.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no doubt the respondent/plaintiff after the impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant had a right to file an amended plaint, but then the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been specific as to what the proposed amendments were, why they were necessitated after the impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant and the application ought to have been accompanied by an amended plaint. In the absence of these necessary ingredients learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court because the proposed amendments were duly spelled out in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civl Procedure, which stands allowed by a reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court and now in terms of the directions passed by the Court, the respondent/plaintiff shall be filing an amended plaint to which written statement can be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that Order 1, Rule 10 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a defendant is added, the plaint shall unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the Court thinks fit.
The Court observed that the application which was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent/ plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint was completely vague in the absence of specific averments therein as to what actually the respondent/plaintiff intended to incorporate in the plaint by way of amendment and where exactly in the plaint the amendments were to be incorporated. Besides this, why these amendments were necessary after the impleadment of the defendant as a party defendant was also not spelled out in the application. In the absence of these necessary ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order allowing the application is set aside.
Case Title: Ashwani Sood v Smt. Chanderkanta & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Case no.: CMPMO No.92 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Sood
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chandel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
