LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Amendement of plaint rejected = In our view, the Trial Court was right in rejecting the application. This we say for more than one reason. First, it was wholly belated; Second, respondent No.1(plaintiff) filed the application for amendment of the plaint when the trial in the suit was almost over and the case was fixed for final arguments; and Third, the suit could still be decided even without there being any necessity to seek any amendment in the plaint. In our view, 4 4 amendment in the plaint was not really required for determination of the issues in the suit.


Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL  APPEAL No. 2012 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1873 of 2012)
Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   08.01.2008  passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Gujarat   at   Ahmedabad   in   Special   Civil
1 1
Application   No.6737   of   2007   whereby   the   High
Court allowed the Special Civil Application filed by
respondent No.1 herein and while setting aside the
order dated 23.02.2007 of the Trial Court allowed
the application for amendment of the plaint filed  by
respondent No.1 herein.
3. The   appeal   involves   a   short   point   for   its
disposal as would be clear from the facts mentioned
hereinbelow.
4. The   appellants   are   the   proposed   defendants
whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and other
respondents   are   the   defendants   in   Civil   Suit
No.6170 of 1990 pending in the City Civil Court,
Ahmedabad.
5. Respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has filed the suit
for partition of the suit land and for consequential
reliefs against the other respondents.   In the said
suit,   respondent   No.1   filed   an   application   for
2 2
amendment of the plaint.  The Trial Court by order
dated 23.02.2007 rejected the said application.
6.   Respondent   No.1   felt   aggrieved   by   the
rejection of her amendment application by the Trial
Court   and   filed   Special   Civil   Application
No.6737/2007   in   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat   at
Ahmedabad.   By impugned order, the High Court
allowed   the   Special   Civil   Application   and   while
setting aside the order dated 23.02.2007 of the Trial
Court   allowed   the   amendment   application   giving
rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in
this Court by the proposed defendants.
7. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court   was   justified   in   allowing   the   Special   Civil
Application filed by respondent No.1(plaintiff) and
was, therefore, justified in allowing the amendment
application.
3 3
8. Heard Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Priank Adhayarn, learned
counsel for the respondents.
9. 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 impugned order restore the order of the
Trial   Court   and   reject   the   application   filed   by
respondent No.1 (plaintiff) for amendment of   her
plaint.
10. In   our   view,   the   Trial   Court   was   right   in
rejecting the application.  This we say for more than
one reason. First, it was wholly belated; Second,
respondent   No.1(plaintiff)  filed  the   application   for
amendment  of the plaint when the trial in the suit
was almost over and the case was fixed for final
arguments;   and   Third,   the   suit   could   still   be
decided even without there being any necessity to
seek any amendment in the plaint.   In our view,
4 4
amendment in the plaint was not really required for
determination of the issues in the suit.
11. It is for these reasons, the impugned order is
legally   unsustainable.   The   appeal   thus   succeeds
and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is
set aside and the order dated 23.02.2007 of the
Trial Court is restored.
12. The Trial Court is directed to decide the civil
suit within one month strictly in accordance with
law.         
                                     .………...................................J.
                                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]   
                               
     …...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
February 25, 2019
5 5