Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

C H A K R E S H WA R I

C O N S T R U C T I O N P R I VAT E
LIMITED
V.
MANOHAR LAL

(2017) 5 SCC 212

Presented by:
Jannat Deep bhaura
Roll No. 17030
Group 6
Hon’ble Jasti Chelameshwar,JJ and
IN THE HON’BLE Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA Decided on February 10, 2017
The judgment of the court was
delivered by Abhay Manohar Sapre,
JJ
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –
Order 6, Rule 17 – Amendment to pleadings
Order 7, Rule 14(3) - Production of document on which
plaintiff sues or relies

• Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 –


LEGAL
PROVISIONS Sections 21 - Procedure and powers of the Rent
INVOLVED Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal

ISSUES INVOLVED • Issue:


Whether the Rent Tribunal and the High Court were
justified in rejecting the two applications filed by the
appellant in their pending main eviction petition viz. one
filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code r/w S. 21 of
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 seeking to amend their
eviction petition and other filed under Order 7, Rule 14(3)
of the Code r/w/ S. 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act,
2001 seeking permission to file some additional
documents in support of the amendment sought?
• Appellant , a limited company is the owner of the shop.
• Respondent, the tenant of the appellant’s shop.
• Appellant has filed the eviction petition against the
respondent under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur claiming the eviction of
the respondent from the suit shop.
• The appellant, after close of the evidence, filed two
applications. One was under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code FACTS OF THE
read with Section 21 of the Act and another application CASE
under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code read with Section
21 of the Act.
• By order dated 26.02.2014, the Rent Tribunal dismissed
both the applications on the ground of delay and being
immaterial
• The appellant filed two writ petitions before the High
Court. By impugned orders, the High Court dismissed
the writ petitions and affirmed the order of the Rent
Tribunal .
• Hence, the current appeal by Special Leave in the
BASIC PRINCIPLES TO BE CONSIDERED
UNDER ORDER6, RULE 17

Revajeetu builders and developers v. Narayanaswami and sons,


(2009) 10 SCC 84

• Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and


effective adjudication of the case;
• Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;
• The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side
which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
• Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to
multiple litigation;
• Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and
• As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh
suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the
date of application.
• The court held that the basic principles have been satisfied
by the appellant.
• The parties are permitted to amend their pleadings at any
stage not only during the pendency of the trial but also at
the first and second appellate stage with the leave of the
Court provided the amendment proposed is bona fide,
relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the
parties involved in the lis.
• The law also permits the parties to file additional evidence
at any stage of the trial [Order 7 Rule 14 (3)]
RATIO
• The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly allowed.
Impugned orders and the order dated 26.02.2014 passed
by the Rent Tribunal are set aside.
• To meet the ends of justice, the appellant shall pay costs of
Rs.1500 to the respondent.
• The respondent is also granted opportunity to make
consequential amendment in the written statement and is
granted liberty to file any additional documentary
evidence.
• Basic principle to be considered while determining an
application under Order 6, Rule 17
• Only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive
JURISPRUDENTI • Liberal attitude towards the civil suits
AL IMPACT
• Use of the word ‘may’ reflects the discretion of courts
• The application under the alleged provisions can be
moved at any stage of the suit
THANK YOU

Вам также может понравиться