advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, August 12, 2013

Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.= merely because an amendment may take the suit out of jurisdiction of that court is no ground for refusing an application preferred under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40624
                                                              Non-reportable
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL No.  6273    OF 2013
                [Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.11428 of 2012)


Tara V. Ganju & Anr.                                 .. Appellants
                                   Versus
Basant and Co. & Ors.                              .. Respondents



                               J U D G M E N T


K. S. Radhakrishnan, J






       Leave granted.




2.    The appellant herein instituted a suit on the  original  side  of  the
High Court of Delhi which was registered as CS (OS) No.1861 of  1995  for  a
decree of declaration, cancellation, permanent  injunction,  possession  and
damages regarding property known as Lakshmi Niwas  with  the  superstructure
and also for the consequential reliefs.   Few  applications  for  amendments
of  the  plaint  were  also  filed  earlier,  followed  by  the  present  on
04.03.2005, before the trial court  proposing  amendment  to  the  valuation
para of the plaint and also to bring on  record  a  subsequent  event.   The
said application was filed proposing amendment enhancing  the  valuation  of
the suit from Rs.15,00,000/- to  Rs.25,25,530/-.   Had  the  amendment  been
allowed it would have resulted in ousting the pecuniary jurisdiction of  the
trial court and would have transferred  the suit back to  High  Court.   Yet
another amendment proposed, was to bring on record the subsequent  event  of
vacation of the suit property by  tenant  M/s  Osram  Surya  (I)  Pvt.  Ltd.
Learned Additional Judge dismissed the application for amendment vide  order
dated 06.10.2009, which was challenged by  the  appellant  before  the  High
Court and the same was also rejected vide order  dated  11.12.2009.   Hence,
this appeal by special leave.

3.    Shri Jayant Bhushan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant
submitted that what weighed with the courts below was that if the  amendment
was allowed then the trial  court  would  cease  to  have  jurisdiction  and
matter should  have  passed  over  to  the  High  Court.   Learned  counsel,
referring to the Judgment of  this  Court  in  Lakha  Ram  Sharma  v.  Balar
Marketing Private Limited  (2008) 17 SCC 671 submitted that  merely  because
an amendment may take the suit out of  jurisdiction  of  that  court  is  no ground for refusing an application preferred under Order VI Rule  7  of  the Code of Civil Procedure.

4.    Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for the  respondents,  on
the other hand, contended that there is no infirmity in  the  orders  passed
by the courts below  warranting  interference.   Frequent  applications  for
amendment in the plaint and subsequent challenge to the  orders  before  the
highest court have caused considerable delay in the final  disposal  of  the
suit in question.  In order to give a quietus  to  the  matter,  counsel  on
either side suggested that a time limit be fixed for early disposal  of  the
suit.

5.    Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, to give  a
quietus to the litigation and to avoid further multiplicity  of  litigation,
we are inclined to allow the application  for  amendment  preferred  by  the
appellant and direct the trial court to dispose of the  suit  in  accordance
with law, at the earliest, preferably within a period  of  six  months  from
the date of receipt  of  this  order.  Ordered  accordingly.   Parties  will
cooperate for the early disposal of the suit  and  the  court  would  ensure
that unnecessary adjournments be  not  granted  to  the  parties.     Orders
passed by the courts below are accordingly set aside.  The  respondents  are
given three weeks time to file their amended written statement.  The  appeal
is disposed of, as above, with no order as to costs.



                                                             ……………………………..J.
                                              (K.S. Radhakrishnan)






                                                             ……………………………..J.
                                              (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

New Delhi,
|August  06, 2013                                    |              |
|                                                    |              |

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.