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)
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)
