M.C. Joshi And Anr. vs G.S. Kalra
2001 Latest Caselaw 60 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any unauthorised construction or structure whether temporary or otherwise on the second floor of the premises and/or making any addition or alteration therein and for restraining them from throwing waste and litter or dirty waster or blockading the sewage pipes on the ground floor of the premises in suit. Certain other reliefs were also claimed in the plaint which are not relevant for purposes of deciding the present petition.

2. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it was stated by the plaintiff that the defendants were tenants on the second floor of the premises for the last several years and were paying rent @ Rs. 400/- p.m. but for the last about two years before the filing of the suit, the rent had not been paid. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that they were co-tenants in the premises for the last about 23 years. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, it was denied that the defendants were co-tenants and it was stated that only defendant No. 1 was the tenant in the premises in suit. Replication was filed on 8th May, 1996 whereas the suit was filed on or about 15th April, 1996. On 14th November, 1996 the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC for amendment of the plaint. It was stated in the application that it was only defendant No. 1 who was the tenant in the premises and by inadvertence and oversight in paragraph 2 of the plaint the plaintiffs have stated that the defendants were tenants in the premises. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought to amend paragraph 2 of the plaint so as to write that defendant No. 1 was the tenant in the suit premises.

3. This application was opposed by the defendants mainly on the ground that since an since an admission of fact had been made in the plaint, the plaintiffs could not be permitted to withdraw the same. It was stated in the reply that the proposed amendment was neither necessary nor relevant for deciding the matter in controversy between the parties in suit and the same would also change the nature of the claim made in the suit by the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint in the manner suggested in eth application. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court permitting the amendments to be made, the present revision petition was filed by the defendant.

4. It is contended by Mr. Vats, learned Counsel for the defendant/petitioner that since the plaintiff/respondent has admitted in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the defendants were tenants in the suit premises, they could not be permitted to withdraw the admissions already made in the plaint and set up new case that it was only defendant No. 1 who was tenant in the suit premises. It is, therefore, the contention of Mr. Vats that learned Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint.

5. I have gone through the order of the Trial Court and have also perused the records of the suit. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is stated by the plaintiff that an eviction petition was filed against the defendants before learned Additional Rent Controller by father of the plaintiff and on his death the plaintiff had moved an application in the petition for being substituted as legal heir of the deceased. A perusal of the petition for eviction filed before learned Rent Controller shows that it was only defendant No. 1 who was shown as a tenant in the suit premises. On the same date on which the suit was filed, a complaint was stated to have been filed by the plaintiff with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, New Delhi in which complaint again the plaintiff had described only defendant No. 1 as the tenant in the premises. Even in the notice sent by the Counsel on 29th January, 1996 only defendant No. 1 has been described as a tenant in the suit premises. There is another document on record which appears to have been executed by defendant No. 1 on 1st September, 1973 when the suit premises was taken on rent which shows that it was only defendant No. 1 who had taken the premises on rent. All these documents clearly show that it was defendant No. 1 who was tenant in the suit premises and the statement, therefore, made by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the defendants were tenants could be made only by inadvertence and mistake. The defendants cannot be permitted to take advantage of a mistake of the plaintiff. Though, it is true that an admission made by a party cannot be permitted to be taken away by way of amendment, however, if the admission has been made by inadvertence and by mistake and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the said admission was result of mistake, the Court can permit the party to amend the pleadings so as to withdraw such admission made by it in the pleadings. Learned Trial Court has clearly held that the word defendants in paragraph 2 of the plaint has appeared by mistake of the plaintiff and has thus permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint in the manner suggested in the application.

6. It is now well-settled that all amendments which are necessary and relevant for deciding the matters in controversy between the parties should be allowed. It is also a well-established principle that the object of the Courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. As already noticed above, the case of the plaintiff all along was that only defendant No. 1 was the tenant in the premises and it had, therefore, become necessary to amend the plaint since by mistake it was written the defendants were tenants. In may view, learned Trial Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction by allowing the amendment and there being neither any illegality nor irregularity in the order, this Court will not like to interfere with the same.

7. There are no merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

8. C.M. Nos. 3403-04/98:

9. Since the petition has been dismissed, these applications have become infructuous and the same are, accordingly, disposed of.

10. Trial Court record be sent beck immediately.

11. Petition dismissed.