Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Intercontinental Infrastructure ... vs Narmada Valley Development Authority ... on 13 March, 2025
1 MP-6244-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6244 of 2024
M/S INTERCONTINENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
Versus
NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NVDA) AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Navneesh Jauhari - advocate for petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vinay Saraf
1. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed
by the M.P.Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No.57 of 2018,
whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner
for amendment in the reference petition.
2. With consent of the parties, arguments of the counsels are heard for
the purpose of final disposal of the petition.
3. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed a reference case for adjudication of the disputes arising
out of works contract awarded by the respondents to the petitioner before
2 MP-6244-2024
M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal and the same is pending. He further
submits that after considering the reply filed by the respondents in the
reference case, wherein the respondents raised several points regarding
maintainability of the reference petition and alleged that the contract came to
an end on 30.09.2012, the petitioner submitted an application under Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment in the
reference petition. The application was vehemently opposed by the
respondents mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment is not based
on any subsequent events and the case is reached to at the stage of evidence
and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to incorporate any further
pleadings in the reference case.
4. The learned Tribunal after affording the opportunities of hearing to
both the parties, by impugned order dated 12.08.2024 rejected the
application submitted by the petitioner seeking amendment in the reference
petition solely on the ground that petitioner failed to satisfy the Tribunal that
the averments made in the proposed amendment with due diligence could not
be incorporated in the original petition. The learned Tribunal considered the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and dismissed the application even after
holding that the facts of the proposed amendment are relevant facts but not
the material facts.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the learned Tribunal
has committed error in not allowing the application submitted by the
petitioner for the purpose of explaining the objections raised by the
respondents in their Written Statement. The proposed amendment is required
3 MP-6244-2024
to be incorporated in the reference petition. The learned Tribunal has not
considered the fact in respect of the averments of the proposed amendment,
the petitioner moved one separate application for taking additional
documents on record which was allowed by the impugned order itself and if
the amendment is refused, no useful purpose will serve in taking those
documents on record. He relied on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court
in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited and Another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 , wherein the Apex
Court has held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for
determining the real question in controversy which does not cause injustice
or prejudice to the other side. He prays for setting aside the impugned order.
6 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported
the order passed by the learned Tribunal and submitted that all the facts
mentioned in the amendment application were already in the knowledge of
the petitioner before filing the reference claim petition but the same were not
averred in the original petition, therefore, the petitioner is estopped from
bringing these facts on record at the belated stage of the case. He further
submits that as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, no amendment can
be allowed after commencement of the evidence if the same is not based on
any subsequent event. He prayed for rejection of the petition.
7. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of documents available on record, it reveals that
petitioner has preferred a reference claim petition before the learned
Tribunal, wherein the respondents have submitted Written Statement raising
4 MP-6244-2024
several preliminary objections and in order to rebut the preliminary
objections raised by the respondents, the petitioner proposed the amendment
in the reference petition which was denied by the Tribunal.
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned
Tribunal itself has held that the averment proposed by the petitioner to be
incorporated in the reference claim petition are relevant and subject matter of
evidence. The learned Tribunal has declined to grant the permission for
amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment is not material and
is proposed at the stage of the evidence belatedly.
9. It is apparent to consider that the documents filed in support of the
proposed amendment were taken on record by the learned Tribunal. It is trite
law that documents without pleadings cannot be considered and when the
documents were taken on record, the proposed amendment ought to have
been allowed. Apex Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of
India (supra) has held that delay in applying for amendment alone cannot be
a ground to disallow the prayer if the proposed amendment is not barred by
limitation on the date of filing of the application.
10. The Apex Court has further held that every application for
amendment in any case should be tested in the facts and circumstances of the
each case. In the present matter, the amendment was proposed considering
the preliminary objections raised by the respondents in their reply and even
in the view of the Tribunal, the proposed amendments are relevant. It is well
settled that the Court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for
amendment, if the Court is of the view that amendment is not allowed, a
5 MP-6244-2024
party who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss of
injury.
11. In the present matter if the permission is not granted to the petitioner
to explain in respect of the preliminary objections raised by the respondents,
the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury and the amendment will
really subserve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation.
Matter is pending at the stage of evidence. Parties will get full opportunities
to submit their case in respect of the proposed amendment. In our considered
view, the learned Tribunal has committed error in rejecting the application
filed by the petitioner seeking amendment.
12. Consequently, petition is allowed. Amendment application filed by
the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.08.2024 is set-aside qua the
decision on amendment application. Petitioner is permitted to incorporate the
proposed amendment in his reference claim petition.
13. The respondent shall file a reply to the amended claim petition
within four week.
14. With the above, petition is disposed of.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
rk.
