MOUNT MARY ENTERPRISES Vs. M/S.JIVRATNA MEDI TREAT PVT LTD
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1323 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 30, 2015
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2015
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10161 of 2014)
Mount Mary Enterprises . ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
Leave granted.
1. The appellant, the original plaintiff has been aggrieved by the
Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.12099 of 2013 dated 10th March, 2014
by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as
under:
The appellant, who has been described as a plaintiff
hereinafter, filed a suit against the present respondent, who has been
hereinafter described as a defendant, for specific performance of a
contract in relation to the suit property. The suit property was initially
valued at Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lacs and fifty thousand only).
The plaintiff, thereafter, realized that market value of the property in
question was around Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty lacs
only) and therefore, filed an application for amending the plaint. The
said application for amendment was rejected by the trial court and
thereafter, the aforestated writ petition was filed by the plaintiff
challenging the order rejecting the amendment application. The said
petition has also been dismissed and therefore, the plaintiff has
approached this Court and prayed that the impugned judgment confirming the
order rejecting the amendment of the plaint be set aside and the plaintiff
be permitted to amend the plaint so as to state correct value of the
property in question, which is Rs.1,20,00,000/-.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff had
submitted that the amendment application had been rejected by the trial
court for the reason that the said amendment was made at a belated stage
and by virtue of the said amendment, the suit was to be transferred to the
High Court on its original side. It had been further submitted that the
amendment was made in good faith and by virtue of the said amendment no
harm was to be caused to the defendant and the nature of the suit was also
not going to be changed. It had been further submitted that the appellant
was also prepared to affix additional court fee stamp as valuation of suit
was increased to Rs.1,20,00,000/-.
4. It had been also submitted by the learned counsel that in normal
circumstances an amendment application is always granted unless by virtue
of the amendment, nature of the suit is changed or some irreparable harm is
caused to the defendant. According to him, in the instant case neither
nature of the suit was changed nor was the defendant being put to any
hardship. The amendment was also not likely to cause any prejudice to the
defendant. The amendment which was sought to be made was just and proper
because actual market value of the said property was Rs.1,20,00,000/-. For
the aforesaid reasons, it had been submitted by him that the impugned
judgment confirming the order rejecting the amendment application should be
set aside and the appellant should be permitted to amend the plaint.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
defendant had submitted that the amendment application was filed at a
belated stage with an oblique motive. According to him, in pursuance of
the said amendment, the suit was to be transferred to the High Court and
only with an intention to see that the suit is transferred to the High
Court on its original side, the plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint. It
had, therefore, been submitted by him that the amendment application was
rightly rejected by the trial court and the High Court had rightly
confirmed the said order.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and have also considered the facts
of the case.
7. In our opinion, as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil
Procedure Code, the amendment application should be normally granted unless
by virtue of the amendment nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice
is caused to the defendant. In the instant case, the nature of the suit
was not to be changed by virtue of granting the amendment application
because the suit was for specific performance and initially the property
had been valued at Rs.13,50,000/- but as the market value of the property
was actually Rs.1,20,00,000/-, the appellant-plaintiff had submitted an
application for amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit
property in the plaint.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant had made an averment
in para 30 of the written statement filed in Suit No.1955 of 2010 that the
plaintiff had undervalued the subject matter of the suit. It had been
further submitted in the written statement that the market value of the
suit property was much higher than Rs. 14 lacs. The defendant had paid
Rs.13.5 lacs for the said premises in the year 2002 when the said premises
had been occupied by a tenant bank. Even according to the defendant value
of the suit property had been undervalued by the plaintiff in the plaint.
If in pursuance of the averment made in the written statement the plaintiff
wanted to amend the plaint so as to incorporate correct market value of the
suit property, the defendant could not have objected to the amendment
application whereby the plaintiff wanted to incorporate correct value of
the suit property in the plaint by way of an amendment. The other
contention that the valuation had already been settled cannot also be
appreciated since the High Court has held that the said issue was yet to be
decided by the trial Court.
9. The main reason assigned by the trial court for rejection of the
amendment application was that upon enhancement of the valuation of the
suit property, the suit was to be transferred to the High Court on its
original side. In our view, that is not a reason for which the amendment
application should have been rejected. With regard to amendment of plaint,
the following observation has been made by this Court in the case of North
Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. (2008)
8 SCC 511 :
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or
disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the
relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17
C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (1957) 1
SCR 595 which still holds the filed, it was held that all amendments ought
to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working
injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in
the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the
amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in
costs."
10. In our opinion, on the basis of the aforestated legal position, the
amendment application made by the plaintiff should have been granted,
especially in view of the fact that it was admitted by the plaintiff that
the suit property was initially undervalued in the plaint and by virtue of
the amendment application, the plaintiff wanted to correct the error and
wanted to place correct market value of the suit property in the plaint.
11. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the amendment
application should not have been rejected by the trial court and the High
Court should not have confirmed the order of rejection. We, therefore, set
aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and the order dated
22nd November, 2013 of the trial court, whereby the amendment application
had been rejected.
12 We allow the appeal and direct the trial court to permit the
appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint as prayed for in the amendment
application so as to change valuation of the suit property. There is no
order as to costs.
..............................J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
..............................J
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 30, 2015
For the Latest Updates
Join Now