Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit filed by Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta regarding the administration of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust under The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The suit challenged a notice for a trustee meeting and sought to declare a resolution void. The Supreme Court was approached after the High Court refused to stay certain trial court orders, including the striking out of portions of written statements and an affidavit. The plaintiff's husband and children supported her case, but the contesting defendants sought to limit the scope of the pleadings. The trial court struck out several paragraphs from the written statements and the affidavit, leading to the plaintiff filing writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court admitted these petitions but declined to grant a stay on the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the High Court's discretion, ultimately decided to stay the operation of the orders striking out parts of the written statements and affidavit evidence to avoid confusion during the trial. The Court emphasized that the trial should continue without impediment and requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petitions. The appeals were disposed of with directions for the trial to proceed and the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court's refusal to grant a stay on trial court orders was upheld as it was within its discretion to do so. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court would consider the merits of the petitions challenging the trial court's orders in due course. Held that the High Court's decision was not erroneous (Paras 8-9). B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - The trial court's refusal to allow amendment of the plaint was justified as the evidence had already commenced. The Supreme Court clarified that an amendment would only be considered if the High Court found merit in the challenge to the trial court's orders. Held that the stay of the amendment was unnecessary (Paras 12-13). C) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Evidence - The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the trial court's orders striking out portions of written statements and affidavit evidence to prevent a truncated trial. It emphasized that the trial should proceed without impediment while allowing for the possibility of recalling witnesses if necessary (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to stay the operation of the trial court's orders regarding the amendment of the plaint and striking out portions of written statements and affidavit evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court modified the High Court's orders, staying the operation of the trial court's orders striking out portions of written statements and affidavit evidence, while allowing the trial to proceed without impediment. The Court requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petitions.
Law Points
- Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950
- interim orders
- stay of proceedings
- amendment of plaint
