1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.882 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 9651 of 2017)
N.C. Bansal ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Uttar Pradesh Financial
Corporation & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the
final judgment and order dated 19.12.2016 passed
by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M)
No. 1223 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed
2
the petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court
dated 21.09.2016 in Civil Suit No.7930 of 2016.
3) In order to decide the short question, it is not
necessary to set out the facts in detail and
mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.
4) The controversy involved in the appeal is
whether the two Courts below were justified in
dismissing the three applications filed by the
plaintiff in a pending suit, namely, (i) application
under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code for filing of
documents, (ii) application under Order 6 Rule17 of
the Code seeking amendment in the plaint, and (iii)
application seeking directions against the
respondents for production of some original
documents.
5) The appellant is the plaintiff and the
respondents are the defendants in the suit out of
which this appeal arises.
3
6) The appellant (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit
being Civil Suit No. 252/2005 now renumbered as
(C.S. No 7930/2016) against the respondents
(defendants) in the Court of JSCC-Cum ASCJ-cumGuardian
Judge (West) Delhi.
7) The appellant's suit is for a declaration and
permanent injunction in relation to certain
properties (hereinafter referred to as "the suit
property”). The appellant has claimed the following
reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased - to
pass the decree of declaration as the said
property (at the second floor) bearing No.21
NWA Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extn., New
Delhi-110026 is not a collateral security or
not a mortgage property under the
defendants and also to pass a decree of
permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants thereby
restraining the defendants its agents,
servant, attorneys, nominees etc. etc. from
taking forcible possession or selling of the
said premises bearing No.21, NWA Club Road,
Punjabi Bagh Extn., New Delhi-110026
(situated at second floor on plot no.21 in
NVVA in the layout plan of the Adarsh
Shawan Co-op. House Building Society Ltd.
4
Colony known as Punjabi Bagh Extn. In the
area of Viii Madipur, Delhi-110026 as shown
in red colour in the site plan and from
creating any interference in the use and
enjoyment of the said property, in the
interest of justice.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper be also passed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants along with the cost of the suit.”
8) The respondents have filed their written
statement and denied the appellant's claim set up
in the plaint. The respondents, however, also raised
certain legal objections regarding the
maintainability of the appellant's suit. The Trial
Court upheld the objections raised by the
respondent and accordingly dismissed the
appellant's suit vide judgment/decree dated
20.09.2011 in the initial stage itself as not
maintainable.
9) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal
being R.C.A. 121/14/11 before the Additional
District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. By
5
order dated 20.11.2014, the first Appellate Court
allowed the appellant's appeal and while setting
aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court
remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding
the suit on merits.
10) It appears that the respondents (defendants)
did not take up the matter to the High Court against
the order of the first Appellate Court and, therefore,
the case has now gone back to the Trial Court to
proceed with the trial in the suit.
11) After remand, the appellant (plaintiff), as
mentioned above, filed three applications in his
pending suit. One was under Order 7 Rule 14 of
Code seeking permission to file some additional
documents, second was an application under Order
6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint and the
third application was for a direction to the
6
respondents for production of some original
documents.
12) The respondents (defendants) opposed the
applications filed by the appellant. The Trial Court
by order dated 21.09.2016 dismissed the
applications filed by the appellant (plaintiff).
13) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India in the High Court of Delhi. By impugned
order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant's
(plaintiff’s) writ petition and upheld the order of the
Trial Court.
14) Against the said order, the appellant(plaintiff)
has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by special
leave in this Court questioning its legality and
correctness.
7
15) Heard Mr. Shantanu Bansal, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Misra, learned
counsel for the respondents.
16) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting
aside the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016
and also the impugned order of the High Court
allow the two applications filed by the plaintiff
(appellant herein), namely, application filed under
Order 7 Rule 14 and the application filed under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.
17) We have perused the pleadings and also the
two applications under consideration filed by the
appellant. In our considered opinion, both the
applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) should
have been allowed and he should have been
8
permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional
documents.
18) It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still
at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun;
Second, the proposed amendment sought in the
plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the
applications could not be said to have been filed by
the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been
dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in
its initial stages and for all these years it was sub
judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court
remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial,
the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the
suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and
file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth,
the Courts, in these circumstances, should have
been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.
9
19) So far as the filing of documents is concerned,
this application too should have been allowed on
the same grounds on which we have allowed the
amendment application. In other words, when the
suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to
begin and when the documents filed are alleged to
be that of the respondents themselves having
obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the
appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.
20) So far as the third application for production of
documents by the respondents is concerned, no
argument was advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant. We, therefore, uphold the order of its
rejection by the two Courts below. In other words,
our order is confined to consideration of only two
applications mentioned above.
21) We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion either on the merits of the
10
proposed amendment or on the alleged documents
sought to be filed by the appellant. It is for the
appellant to prove the case set up in the plaint
including the amended pleadings so also to prove
the documents and its relevance in accordance with
law by adducing adequate evidence.
22) In view of forgoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set
aside so also the order dated 21.09.2016 is set aside
to the extent indicated above. As a consequence, the
two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e.,
one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the other
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed,
however, subject to the appellant paying a cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. Let the cost be paid
by the appellant to the respondents within one
month.
11
23) Let the amendment be incorporated in the
plaint as proposed by the plaintiff in his application
for amendment within one month. The respondent
is granted an opportunity to amend their written
statement and make consequential amendment in
reply to the amended plea of the plaintiff (appellant).
24) The appellant(plaintiff) is also allowed to file
the additional documents, as prayed by him. The
respondent(defendant) is also granted an
opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal,
if they so desire.
25) The Trial Court will then reframe the issues
arising in the case in the light of the original
pleadings and the amended pleadings and make an
endeavor to decide the suit in accordance with law
preferably within one year as an outer limit
uninfluenced by any observations made by the High
12
Court in the impugned order and our observations
in this order.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
January 25, 2018
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.882 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 9651 of 2017)
N.C. Bansal ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Uttar Pradesh Financial
Corporation & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the
final judgment and order dated 19.12.2016 passed
by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M)
No. 1223 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed
2
the petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court
dated 21.09.2016 in Civil Suit No.7930 of 2016.
3) In order to decide the short question, it is not
necessary to set out the facts in detail and
mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.
4) The controversy involved in the appeal is
whether the two Courts below were justified in
dismissing the three applications filed by the
plaintiff in a pending suit, namely, (i) application
under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code for filing of
documents, (ii) application under Order 6 Rule17 of
the Code seeking amendment in the plaint, and (iii)
application seeking directions against the
respondents for production of some original
documents.
5) The appellant is the plaintiff and the
respondents are the defendants in the suit out of
which this appeal arises.
3
6) The appellant (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit
being Civil Suit No. 252/2005 now renumbered as
(C.S. No 7930/2016) against the respondents
(defendants) in the Court of JSCC-Cum ASCJ-cumGuardian
Judge (West) Delhi.
7) The appellant's suit is for a declaration and
permanent injunction in relation to certain
properties (hereinafter referred to as "the suit
property”). The appellant has claimed the following
reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased - to
pass the decree of declaration as the said
property (at the second floor) bearing No.21
NWA Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extn., New
Delhi-110026 is not a collateral security or
not a mortgage property under the
defendants and also to pass a decree of
permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants thereby
restraining the defendants its agents,
servant, attorneys, nominees etc. etc. from
taking forcible possession or selling of the
said premises bearing No.21, NWA Club Road,
Punjabi Bagh Extn., New Delhi-110026
(situated at second floor on plot no.21 in
NVVA in the layout plan of the Adarsh
Shawan Co-op. House Building Society Ltd.
4
Colony known as Punjabi Bagh Extn. In the
area of Viii Madipur, Delhi-110026 as shown
in red colour in the site plan and from
creating any interference in the use and
enjoyment of the said property, in the
interest of justice.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper be also passed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants along with the cost of the suit.”
8) The respondents have filed their written
statement and denied the appellant's claim set up
in the plaint. The respondents, however, also raised
certain legal objections regarding the
maintainability of the appellant's suit. The Trial
Court upheld the objections raised by the
respondent and accordingly dismissed the
appellant's suit vide judgment/decree dated
20.09.2011 in the initial stage itself as not
maintainable.
9) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal
being R.C.A. 121/14/11 before the Additional
District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. By
5
order dated 20.11.2014, the first Appellate Court
allowed the appellant's appeal and while setting
aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court
remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding
the suit on merits.
10) It appears that the respondents (defendants)
did not take up the matter to the High Court against
the order of the first Appellate Court and, therefore,
the case has now gone back to the Trial Court to
proceed with the trial in the suit.
11) After remand, the appellant (plaintiff), as
mentioned above, filed three applications in his
pending suit. One was under Order 7 Rule 14 of
Code seeking permission to file some additional
documents, second was an application under Order
6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint and the
third application was for a direction to the
6
respondents for production of some original
documents.
12) The respondents (defendants) opposed the
applications filed by the appellant. The Trial Court
by order dated 21.09.2016 dismissed the
applications filed by the appellant (plaintiff).
13) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India in the High Court of Delhi. By impugned
order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant's
(plaintiff’s) writ petition and upheld the order of the
Trial Court.
14) Against the said order, the appellant(plaintiff)
has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by special
leave in this Court questioning its legality and
correctness.
7
15) Heard Mr. Shantanu Bansal, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Misra, learned
counsel for the respondents.
16) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting
aside the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016
and also the impugned order of the High Court
allow the two applications filed by the plaintiff
(appellant herein), namely, application filed under
Order 7 Rule 14 and the application filed under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.
17) We have perused the pleadings and also the
two applications under consideration filed by the
appellant. In our considered opinion, both the
applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) should
have been allowed and he should have been
8
permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional
documents.
18) It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still
at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun;
Second, the proposed amendment sought in the
plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the
applications could not be said to have been filed by
the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been
dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in
its initial stages and for all these years it was sub
judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court
remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial,
the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the
suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and
file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth,
the Courts, in these circumstances, should have
been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.
9
19) So far as the filing of documents is concerned,
this application too should have been allowed on
the same grounds on which we have allowed the
amendment application. In other words, when the
suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to
begin and when the documents filed are alleged to
be that of the respondents themselves having
obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the
appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.
20) So far as the third application for production of
documents by the respondents is concerned, no
argument was advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellant. We, therefore, uphold the order of its
rejection by the two Courts below. In other words,
our order is confined to consideration of only two
applications mentioned above.
21) We, however, make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion either on the merits of the
10
proposed amendment or on the alleged documents
sought to be filed by the appellant. It is for the
appellant to prove the case set up in the plaint
including the amended pleadings so also to prove
the documents and its relevance in accordance with
law by adducing adequate evidence.
22) In view of forgoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set
aside so also the order dated 21.09.2016 is set aside
to the extent indicated above. As a consequence, the
two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e.,
one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the other
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed,
however, subject to the appellant paying a cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. Let the cost be paid
by the appellant to the respondents within one
month.
11
23) Let the amendment be incorporated in the
plaint as proposed by the plaintiff in his application
for amendment within one month. The respondent
is granted an opportunity to amend their written
statement and make consequential amendment in
reply to the amended plea of the plaintiff (appellant).
24) The appellant(plaintiff) is also allowed to file
the additional documents, as prayed by him. The
respondent(defendant) is also granted an
opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal,
if they so desire.
25) The Trial Court will then reframe the issues
arising in the case in the light of the original
pleadings and the amended pleadings and make an
endeavor to decide the suit in accordance with law
preferably within one year as an outer limit
uninfluenced by any observations made by the High
12
Court in the impugned order and our observations
in this order.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
January 25, 2018
