Open iDraf
Pradeep Singhvi v. Heero Dhankani

Pradeep Singhvi
v.
Heero Dhankani

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 4366 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18073 of 2001) | 23-07-2004


R.C. Lahoti, C.J.—Leave granted.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,77,300/- based on a document dated 1.4.1995. The defendant-appellants are contesting the suit. Soon after examination of one of the plaintiffs, the defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement raising an additional plea. The prayer has been rejected by the trial court as also by the High Court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the proposed amendment would have had the effect of drastically altering the nature of the defence or withdrawing an admission made earlier by the defendants. Under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., the Court has discretion to permit at any stage of the proceedings such amendment in the pleadings as would be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

4. Of course, by the time the defendants moved an application for amending the written statement, the trial had commenced but the proposed amendment, if allowed, would not have irreparably prejudiced the plaintiffs. At the most, the plaintiff could have been re-examined. We do not think that the trial court was justified in refusing the prayer for amendment in written statement which would have the effect of excluding the defendants from raising a plea material for their defence.

5. The impugned order of the trial court dated 6.2.2001 is set aside. The defendant-respondents' application for amendment in written statement which came up for hearing on 15.1.2001 is allowed but subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs before the trial court. Needless to say, the plaintiffs shall have the liberty of incorporating consequential amendment in the plaint or filing rejoinder to the plea raised by the defendants in the written statement by way of amendment.

6. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent to the incorporation of amendment in the written statement.

7. The appeal stands disposed of in the terms above-said.

Advocates List

NONE

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICER.C. LAHOTI

CJ

HON'BLE JUSTICEG.P. MATHUR

Eq Citation

(2004) 13 SCC 432

LQ/SC/2004/772

HeadNote

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 6 Rr. 17 and 18 and Or. 7 R. 11(d) — Amendment of pleadings — Application for amendment of written statement raising additional plea — Rejection of — Impermissibility of — Held, court has discretion to permit at any stage of the proceedings such amendment in the pleadings as would be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties — Trial court was not justified in refusing the prayer for amendment in written statement which would have the effect of excluding the defendants from raising a plea material for their defence — Trial court's order set aside and application for amendment of written statement allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs 2500 to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs before the trial court — Costs to be a condition precedent to the incorporation of amendment in the written statement