Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Jammu Cold Storage vs Pspcl And Anr on 25 May, 2023
CR No. 1835 of 2018 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1835 of 2018 (O&M)
Reserved on 15.5.2023
Date of pronouncement : 25.5.2023
M/s Jammu Cold Storage ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.
***
1. Being challenged in this revision petition is order dated
8.2.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by Additional Civil Judge, (Senior
Division), Jalandhar vide which an application for amendment of written
statement filed by defendants respondents has been allowed leaving the
plaintiff aggrieved and it has approached this Court by way of filing a
revision petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in a pending civil suit
titled 'M/s Jammu Cold Storage versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
and others', plaintiff M/s Jammu Cold Storage, Village Bara Pind, Tehsil
Kartarpur, Jalandhar had sought a declaration that supplementary bill
requiring the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.6,76,340/- with defendants is
illegal, null and void.
PARVINDER SINGH
2023.05.26 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
3. On getting notice, the defendants had appeared and filed a
written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections
contending that connection of the plaintiff Firm was checked by MMTS on
22.4.2012 in presence of Jaspal Singh, partner of plaintiff Firm. The report
of inspection was prepared at the spot and a copy was delivered to Sh. Jaspal
Singh. As per report of MMTS the contribution from red phase to yellow
phase and blue phase was very low and on the LT side of meter of consumer
R Y B reading was 110 105 100 amps., therefore, CT/PT were asked to be
changed immediately. The account of consumer was overhauled from
12/2011 and 7/2012 and supplementary bill for Rs.4,17,598/- was raised.
Other facts were also pleaded in the statement.
4. Issues on the merits were framed. The parties were given
opportunities to lead evidence. When the case was at the stage of evidence
of defendants then an application was filed on behalf of defendants under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for incorporating para No. 4A in the written statement
regarding check of meter CT/PT in M.E. Lab and finding the same as
defective. Resultantly amount was charged on basis of M.E. Lab report,
DDL and checking dated 22.4.2012. It was stated this fact could not be
incorporated earlier as concerned Sub Division had not provided the record.
The application was opposed vehemently on behalf of plaintiff, however, it
was allowed by the trial Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 8.2.2018 observing that the proposed
amendment would not change the nature of the suit and fact is necessary to
come on record for proper adjudication of the matter.
PARVINDER SINGH
2023.05.26 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
5. This order left the plaintiff aggrieved and it has approached this
Court by way of filing the present revision petition, notice of which was
given to respondent defendant No. 1 who have put in appearance through
counsel.
6. I have learned counsel for the parties besides going through the
record.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has attacked the
impugned order mainly on two grounds. First being that the application is
highly belated and it has been filed when the trial was at an advanced stage
with defendants having led substantial evidence and secondly that it was an
attempt to fill up lacuna in case of the defendants so as to nullify the gains of
cross-examination which had accrued to the plaintiff from cross-examination
of the witnesses of defendants. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents
defendants has controverted those assertions.
8. After considering the rival contentions, I find that though scope
of provision relating to amendment of pleadings has been restricted with
introduction of the provisions that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial is commenced unless the Court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could have raised the
matter before the commencement of trial but if the entire provision is seen in
totality then it transpires that under this provision the Court may at any stage
of proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such
manner and on such directions as may be just and on the second part
provides that such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the
purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
PARVINDER SINGH
2023.05.26 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to judgment of
a coordinate Bench of this Court cited as 'Gurjit Kaur and another versus
Balwinder Singh and others 2018(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 86' which provides
that amendment in pleadings is to be liberally construed so as to consider
real controversy between the parties and to give verdict more satisfactorily.
Though proviso to rule to some extent curtails absolute discretion of the
Court to allow amendment at any stage. However, knowledge and diligence
and considerations on which bonafides of the parties has to be decided in
order to prevent frivolous applications for amendment. In this very judgment
it was observed that the object of the rule is that Court may try merit of case
and allow all amendments which may be necessary for determination of real
controversy between the parties. In that judgment the conditions for allowing
amendment of pleadings have been enumerated i.e. first condition of
amendment is that it should not be unjust resulting in prejudice against
opposite party. The second condition is that amendment is perceived to be
necessary by the Court for the purposes of determining real issues between
the parties then all amendments are to be allowed which satisfy two
conditions. It was further observed that amendment at belated stage cannot
be declined merely for that reason. Even otherwise under Section 151 Cr.P.C
the Court has inherit power to make such orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In the
impugned order itself the trial Court has observed that amendment would
not change the nature of the suit and it is necessary for proper adjudication
of the matter. There is no element of perversity or arbitrariness in the
impugned order.
PARVINDER SINGH
2023.05.26 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
10. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order being
challenged in the revision petition, however, it has been observed that in a
suit filed in the year 2013 amendment of written statement has been allowed
on 8.2.2018 i.e. after about five years i.e. after considerable delay the
plaintiff ought to have been compensated in terms of imposing some cost on
defendants but the trial Court omitted doing so. While upholding the
impugned order it is directed that the defendants would pay cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff within a period of one month of receipt of copy
of this order to compensate the plaintiff for the delay caused as a result of
the acceptance of the application for amendment of the written statement.
11. With such modification, the revision petition is disposed of.
(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
May 25, 2023
p.singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
PARVINDER SINGH
2023.05.26 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
