Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Singh vs M/S Kishan Chand Rajesh Kumar , ... on 9 September, 2024

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118152




CR-3694-2024
        2024 (O&M)                   1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  CR-3694-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Decided on: 09.09.2024

SURINDER SINGH

                                                              ...Petitioner

                                           Versus

M/S KISHAN CHAND RAJESH KUMAR,
COMMISSION AGENT
                                                          ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present:    Mr. Sukhbir
                    khbir Singh Tiwana, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
                          ****

RITU TAGORE, TAGORE J.

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated

21.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) P 5) vide which application dated 29.01.2024

(Annexure P-3), P filed by petitioner-plaintiff plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for amendment of

plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed a

suit (Annexure P-1) P against the respondent respondent-defendant for recovery of

Rs.4,11,007.37/ Rs.4,11,007.37/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

Respondent/defendant upon appearance, filed its written statement Respondent/defendant

(Annexure P--2).

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118152

CR-3694-2024

3. Learned counsel states that respondent respondent-defendant firm wass

arrayed as proprietorship firm, firm, whereas it is a partnership firm, therefore, herefore,

petitioner-plaintiff plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint

(Annexure P-3), P seeking necessary addition and deletion in the plaint. The

respondent-defendant defendant firm resisted the application by filing reply (Annexure

P-4).

4). The learned trial Court dismissed the application in a mechanical

manner, vide order dated 21.05.2024 (Annex (Annexure P-5).

4. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court, took a

very rigid view of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, contrary to the

settled position of law which provides that Court should allow all the

amendments ndments of the pleadings which are re necessary for the adjudicati adjudication on of

matter effectively.

effectively In this regard learned counsel referred to judgment of

Hon'ble le the Supreme Court of India Mahila R Ramkali amkali Devi and others Vs.

Nandram (D) Thr. LRs and others, 2015 (5) R.C.R.(Civil) 562 and co--

ordinate te Bench of this Court in Diwan Singh Khaira Vs. Sarwan Singh Singh,,

2020 (1) PLR 98.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have ave gone

through the paper book with his valuable assistance.

6. Keeping in view the limited prayer made in this revision

petition, I am of the considered view that issuing notice to respondent firm at

this stage would, only further delay the proceedings before the learned trial

Court and keeping in view the order that is being passed, notice to the

respondent is dispensed with at this stage.

7. It is a matter of record that petitioner petitioner-Surinder Singh filed a suit

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118152

CR-3694-2024

for recovery against M/s Kishan Chand Rajesh Kumar (Annexure P-1).

1). The

respondent-defendant defendant firm in para No.6 of its written statement (Annexure

P-2) took objection that the respondent-defendant defendant is a partnership firm and

all the partners tners were not arrayed as party. The learned trial Court dismissed

the application observing that the petitioner petitioner-plaintiff plaintiff filed the application,

belatedly with no plea to demonstrate that he exercised due diligence diligence,, and

further observed that petitioner cannot be allowed llowed to fill up the lacuna.

8. It is well established principle of law that amendment in the

pleadings is to be construed liberally so as to consider the real controversy

between the parties and to pronounce the decision more satisfactorily. The

object of the amendment is that the Court must try the merit of the case and

allow all bona fide amendments which are necessary for just decision of the

case.

9. In Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others,

2012(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 481, 481, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power

to allow amendment is wide enough to be exercised at any stage in the

interest of justice. The purpose is to minimize the litigation.

10. Coming to facts of the case, although objection qua

maintainability of suit was taken by the respondent firm,, and petitioner did

not promptly file an application for impleadment of the proper party,,

however, wever, party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake,

negligence, inadvertent or even infraction in rules of procedure as per law

laid down in Mahilaa Ramkali Devi and others (supra).

11. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118152

CR-3694-2024

administration of justice. In present case, the description of the respondent is

required to be clarified by the petitioner. This Court does not think that this

will prejudice the respondent-defendant.

respondent

12. Further in a recent judgment of Life Insurance Corporation of

India Vs. Sanjeev Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another another, 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 1128, 1128, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, has laid down certain

principles governing the amendment of pleadings which are reproduced

herein below:-

below:

"70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule le 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is ap apparent parent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and

(ii)

ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless

(i) by the amendment, dment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,

(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,

(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or

(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118152

CR-3694-2024

(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin pin-pointedly pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to intr introduce oduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material ial particulars in the plaint.

(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(x)

x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to thee relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach.

oach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between etween the parties, the amendment should be allowed."

13. Applying the principles as culled out in Life Insurance (supra))

to the facts of the present case, to the considered opinion of this Court, the

impugned order does not withstand judicial scrut scrutiny for the reasons detailed

above. Furthermore, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, undertakes to

file the amended plaint.

plaint. Keeping that in view, it is also an established

practice of law that the delay can always be rectified by imposing costs.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118152

CR-3694-2024

14. Accordingly, ordingly, impugned order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P P-5)

is hereby set aside, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/ Rs.15,000/- as costs, payable by y