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
