WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

Thursday, February 1, 2018

amendment application, which detract from and/or resile from admissions made in the original written statement. - not be allowed - admissions made in the written statement cannot be resiled from, but gave an opportunity to Defendant Nos. 5 and 12 to explain/clarify admissions made in the written statement. - does not mean that misuse the liberty given by this Court and reintroduce the amendments resiling admissions

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35840/2016)
RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA                               Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA  & ORS.                       Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1) Leave granted.
2) The present  appeal is  a very  unfortunate proceeding  which has
not   taken   off   the   ground.     Thanks   to   litigation   which   has   twice
come up to this Court.
3) A Partition Suit of 1978 has only reached the stage of issues
thus far.  A written statement to the aforesaid Suit had been filed
by   Respondent   No.1   and   his   mother   on   16.08.1979   in   which   certain
admissions   as   to   Mahabir   Prosad   Kajaria   being   separated   from   his
father and carrying on his own independent business were made.   In
addition,   the   said   written   statement   also   referred   to   and   relied
upon   an   Award   of   1956   which   was   stated   to   be   binding   on   all   the
representatives   of   the   father,   Motilal   Kajaria,   and   that   the   said
Award was registered and fully implemented.
4) In an attempt to resile from the aforesaid statements made in
the   original   written   statement,   an   application   for   amendment   was
moved sometime in the year 2004.  This application was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge.  However, by a judgment dated 09.09.2010,
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   allowed   the   aforesaid

2
amendment   application.     By   this   Court's   judgment   dated   18.09.2015
[Ram   Niranjan   Kajaria   vs.   Sheo   Prakash   Kajaria   and   Ors.,   reported
in   (2015)   10   SCC   203],   this   Court   agreed   with   the   learned   Single
Judge   in   stating   that   admissions   made   in   the   written   statement
cannot be resiled from, but gave an opportunity to Defendant Nos. 5
and 12 to explain/clarify admissions made in the written statement.
5) It is important to note that the amendment that was asked for
was   disallowed   by   this   Court.     In   the   second   round   of   litigation,
an amended written statement was filed on 24.08.2016 by Respondent
No.1 in which it was stated as under:
�15.   The   facts   stated   in   paragraph   1   above   and
various   sub-paragraphs   thereunder   are   not
factually   correct   and   the   same   was   made   on   the
basis  of  misconception  of  fact  and  disclosure  of
subsequent events.  In order to withdraw the said
statements   made   in   paragraph   1   above   and   in
sub-paragraphs   thereunder,   an   application   for
amendment   of   the   written   statement   was   made   by
this   defendant   alongwith   the   original   defendant
No.12   who   has   since   been   expired.     Both   the
Hon'ble   Court   has   allowed   the   amendment   but   in
the Special Leave Petition filed against the said
order  of  this  Hon'ble  Court,  the  Hon'ble  Supreme
Court   of   India   was   pleased   to   disallow   the   said
amendment   as   granted   by   the   Division   Bench   of
this   Hon'ble   Court   and,   inter   alia,   was   pleased
to   permit   this   defendant   to   explain/clarify   the
dispute.     Admission   in   the   written   statement   by
an   order   dated   18 th
  September,   2015,   this
defendant   therefore,   on   the   basis   of   the   said
permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
is   clarifying   and/or   explaining   that   as   to   why

3
and  in  what  circumstances  the  said  admission  was
made   by   this   defendant   alongwith   the   original
defendant   No.12,   since   expired,   in   the   written
statement filed in the above suit.�
The said respondent then went on to add in the second amended writ
petition   substantially   the   same   pleas   as   that   were   taken   in   the
amended   written   statement   in   the   first   round,   which   this   Court
stated could not be made inasmuch as resiling from admissions were
clearly   not   permitted.     The   learned   Single   Judge,   in   the   second
round   of   litigation,   has   allowed   the   aforesaid   written   statement
and   by   the   impugned   judgment   of   09.08.2016,   the   view   taken   by   the
Single Judge was upheld.
6) Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior advocate, has argued before
us that the liberty given by this Court has been grossly misused by
the   respondents   inasmuch   as   they   sought   to   reintroduce   in   the
second   amendment   application   substantially   everything   that   was
already rejected in the first.  He has given us a chart in which he
has set out what was disallowed in the first amendment and what has
since been allowed by the impugned judgment in the second amendment
application.
7) On   a   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   Chart,   we   are   satisfied   that
Respondent   No.1   has,   in   fact,   misused   the   liberty   given   by   this
Court and has substantially reintroduced the amendments made in the
first   amendment  application,   which  detract   from  and/or   resile  from
admissions made in the original written statement.
8) However,   it   must   be   added   that   this   Court,   in   its   judgment
dated   18.09.2015,   has   extracted   a   portion   of   para   11   of   the   first

4
amendment made by Respondent No.1 and has concluded therefrom that
given the statement made, it would be open for the Respondent No.1
to   explain   and/or   clarify   admissions.     Inasmuch   as   this   Court   has
in a manner of speaking allowed this portion of para 11 set out in
para   25   of   this   Court's   judgment   dated   18.09.2015,   we   allow   the
Respondent   No.1   to   place   reliance   upon   the   statement   made   in   this
part   of   para   11   and   treat   it   as   an   amended   written   statement.
Beyond this, nothing else is allowed and the entire attempt made by
the second amendment has to be interfered with and is set aside.
9) We   thus   allow   the   appeal   and   set   aside   the   impugned   judgment
and   request   the   High   Court   to   take   up   the   Suit   for   hearing   on   a
day-to-day basis as expeditiously as possible.  The High Court will
endeavor   to   hear   and   dispose   of   the   Suit   within   a   period   of   one
year from today.
10) Given   the   fact   that   the   Respondent   No.1   has   misused   the
liberty   given   by   the   judgment   dated   18.09.2015,   we   feel   costs   of
Rs.50,000/- should be imposed upon him as well, which shall be paid
to the appellant within a period of two weeks from today.
   .......................... J.
   (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
   .......................... J.
             (NAVIN SINHA)
New Delhi;
January 16, 2018.

5
ITEM NO.25               COURT NO.12               SECTION XVI
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
S.L.P. (Civil) No(s).  35840/2016
RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA                               Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
SHEO PRAKASH KAJARIA  & ORS.                       Respondent(s)
Date : 16-01-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.
                   Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Asim Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
                   Ms. Shipra Ghose, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN)                                  (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                  COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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