Smt. Sorokhaibham Swaruparani ... vs Shri Ashem Kumarjit Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 176 Mani

KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM by KABORAMBAM

SANDEE SANDEEP    SINGH


P SINGH
        Date: 2022.05.05
        16:09:18 +05'30'                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                   AT IMPHAL

                                          CRP (C.R.P. Art.227) No. 28 of 2019


                           Smt. Sorokhaibham Swaruparani Devi, aged about 59 years,
                           w/o Mutum Kirankumar Singh of Heirangoithong Bazar,
                           P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District , Manipur-795003.
                                                                               ...Petitioner/Defendant

                                                        -versus-

                           Shri Ashem Kumarjit Singh, aged about 61 years, s/o late Ashem
                           Babudhan Singh of Kakwa Naorem Leikai, P.O. Canchipur &
                           P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795003.
                                                                              ... Respondent/Plaintiff

BEFORE

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

For the petitioner/defendant : Mr. T.Rajendra, Advocate

For respondent/plaintiff : Mr. A.Jagjit Singh, Advocate

Date of Reserving Order : 27.04.2022

Date of Delivery of Judgment : 05.05.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

[1] This Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution. The petitioner herein is the defendant in Money Suit No.41 of 2018 on

the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West. The respondent,

being the plaintiff, filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.639 of 2018 therein

seeking to amend his plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. By order dated

CRP (CRP Art.227) No.28 of 2019 Page 1 18.05.2019, the Trial Court allowed the amendment on payment of costs.

Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court.

By order dated 03.06.2019, this Court stayed proceedings in the suit.

[2] Heard Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant;

and Mr. A.Jagjit Singh, learned counsel, for the respondent/plaintiff.

[3] Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

[4] The case of the plaintiff, as per the original plaint averments, was that

the defendant and he were known to each other since their childhood days and

were also having a good family relationship. This statement was made in the

context of how the alleged transaction took place between them. According to him,

he lent a sum of `4,25,000/- to the defendant at Bengaluru during September,

2015, when they had gone there for the college admission of their respective

children. He claimed that the defendant gave him a cheque for the amount. It was

on this basis that he filed the suit for recovery of the said amount.

By way of his amendment petition in Judicial Miscellaneous Case

No.639 of 2018, the plaintiff claimed that certain typographical mistakes were

made in the plaint averments. He wanted to insert the words 'husband of' between

the words 'the' and 'defendant' in the first line of paragraph No.2 of the plaint. He

therefore wanted to change his version to the effect that the husband of the

defendant and he were known to each other since their childhood days and that

they had a good family relationship. This was the only amendment that he sought.

The Trial Court opined that this amendment did not change the

character of the suit or bring about a different cause of action. The Trial Court

further opined that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as she would

CRP (CRP Art.227) No.28 of 2019 Page 2 have an opportunity to amend her defence on this particular point. Noting that the

trial was yet to commence in the suit, the Trial Court permitted the amendment on

payment of costs of `500/-.

[5] Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel, would contend that the very basis

for the money transaction, as set out in the plaint originally, was the so-called

relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and, therefore, permitting him

to alter that version amounted to a fundamental change of the pleadings, causing

prejudice to the defendant.

[6] Per contra, Mr. A.Jagjit Singh, learned counsel, relying on the

affidavit-in-opposition filed in this revision, would assert that except for explaining

the factual situation as to how the parties knew each other, the nature of the suit

and the basis for seeking recovery of the money remained unchanged and,

therefore, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in permitting the amendment.

[7] Normally, Courts would be liberal in permitting amendment of the

pleadings before commencement of the trial in the suit, as in the case on hand. In

Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia (AIR 2018 SCC 100), the

Supreme Court observed that the question as to whether an amendment should be

allowed or not would not depend upon whether the case proposed to be set up

would eventually succeed or not and the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the

High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether the Trial Court has

proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. It was noted that the High Court

would not sit as an appellate Court to review or reassess the evidence upon which

the Trial Court passed the order. On the same lines, in Shri Yumnam Ibobi Singh

and others vs. Shri Yumnam Yaima Singh and others (AIR 1993 Gauhati 42),

CRP (CRP Art.227) No.28 of 2019 Page 3 the Gauhati High Court summarized the power of the Court to allow amendment of

pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and held that the provision was very wide

as the Court could allow amendment of pleadings at any stage for the purpose of

determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It was further

held that the Court should reject the prayer for amendment if a fresh suit on the

proposed amendment is barred by limitation and if there is delay in praying for the

amendment, such delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. As a

general rule, per the Gauhati High Court, amendment of pleadings should not be

allowed to set up a new case or a new cause of action and parties cannot be

allowed to change their case completely by substituting an entirely new case.

Again, in Dewan Mamataz Ali vs. Mustt. Mehabuba Begam and others {1997

(II) GLT 608}, the Gauhati High Court reiterated that all amendments necessary for

the purpose of determining the question in controversy between the parties or for

removing any defect or error in the proceeding should be allowed. It was held that

such amendments would be subject to two conditions - 1) not working injustice to

the other side; and 2) being necessary for the purpose of determining the question

in controversy between the parties. It was further held that the amendment should

not substitute one cause of action for another or bring about a total change in the

subject matter of the suit.

[8] Perusal of the material placed on record reflects that the defendant

had filed a written statement in the suit putting forth an altogether different version

as to how the parties came to know each other. According to her, when they were

looking for a medical college outside the State of Manipur for their daughter in the

year 2015, one A.K.Bowjit Singh, who was a close friend of her husband,

CRP (CRP Art.227) No.28 of 2019 Page 4 requested her husband to allow the plaintiff to join them, saying that the plaintiff

was his brother-in-law and was also seeking to admit his daughter in MBBS

Course. It is on this basis that the defendant claimed that they had gone together

to Bengaluru. She admitted issuance of the cheque to him for a sum of `4,25,000/-

but claimed that it was in completely different circumstances.

[9] In effect, the amended version of the plaintiff also did not tally with

what was stated by the defendant in her written statement. He therefore did not

take a cue from her written statement to alter his stand. What is crucial, however,

is that the defendant did not deny execution of the cheque in favour of the plaintiff

for a sum of `4,25,000/- but she claimed that such issuance was due to entirely

different reasons and not for those put forward by the plaintiff. This disputed issue

of fact would have to be subjected to evidence and proof during the trial. However,

once the execution of the cheque stands admitted and the plaintiff seeks recovery

of the amount mentioned in the said cheque, mere change of how the parties came

to know each other would not have a vital effect upon the nature of the suit. As

rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, it would be open to the defendant to file an

additional written statement, if she wants to assert that any prejudice was caused

to her and lead evidence on that count during the course of the trial.

[10] In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by

LRs and others (AIR 1994 SCC 853), it was observed that a person, whose case is

based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily

thrown out at any stage of the litigation. This judgment is relied upon by

Mr. T.Rajendra, learned counsel, on the ground that the initial plaint averment to

the effect that the plaintiff and the defendant were known to each other since

CRP (CRP Art.227) No.28 of 2019 Page 5 childhood was clearly a falsehood and, therefore, the plaintiff deserves to be non-

suited on that ground. However, as already pointed out supra, once the execution

of the cheque in favour of the plaintiff stands admitted, the fundamental issue to be

tried and resolved is the circumstance in which the said cheque came to be issued.

The foundation for the relationship between the parties is only an incidental issue

and does not go to the root of the matter. Further, the plaintiff explained that the

initial incorrect averment was due to a typographical error. This judgment is

therefore of no avail to the defendant.

[11] On the above analysis, this Court finds no error having been

committed by the Trial Court in permitting the amendment.

The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly

dismissed. Interim order dated 03.06.2019 shall stand vacated. The Trial Court

shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                        CHIEF JUSTICE


   FR/NFR
Opendro




CRP (CRP Art.227) No.28 of 2019                                                Page 6