Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a special leave petition filed against an order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated May 17, 1996 in Civil Revision No. 1023/96. The dispute originated from a suit instituted by the respondent for declaration of title and possession of land measuring 134 canals 14 marlas in village Japuwal, District Gurdaspur. The respondent claimed to be the adopted son of one Isher Singh and alleged that while he was in possession of the property, the petitioner had disputed his title. The petitioner, in its written statement, denied that Isher Singh had any title to the property and set up title in Darbar Sahib, contending that Isher Singh had gifted the property to Darbar Sahib. After issues were framed and evidence was adduced, at the end of the trial the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the written statement to plead specifically that Isher Singh had gifted the property to Darbar Sahib, Amritsar Shromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, and that it was in possession as a legatee. The High Court set aside the order allowing amendment on two grounds: first, that though inconsistent pleas are permissible in a written statement, the proposed plea was not merely inconsistent but mutually destructive of the pleadings; and second, that there was unexplained delay in filing the amendment application. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded before the High Court that there was no explanation for not taking the specific plea earlier and for coming up with the amendment at a belated stage, but contended that the original written statement already contained a gift clause which was sought to be elaborated by obtaining proper documents. The High Court did not accept this contention. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated the same arguments. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention. It observed that it is settled law that a defendant can raise mutually inconsistent pleadings in the written statement, and it is for the court to consider whether the case can be properly decided. However, in the present case the plea in the written statement was mutually destructive because the petitioner had denied the title of Isher Singh himself, and therefore could not subsequently set up a title in him and plead a gift made by Isher Singh in favour of the petitioner-Committee. The Court also noted that there was no explanation given as to why the petitioner came forward with the plea at the belated stage after parties had adduced evidence and the matter was to be argued. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had rightly refused to allow the amendment and that there was no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference. The special leave petition was dismissed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Belated amendment after evidence stage was refused because the proposed plea was mutually destructive of the existing plea and no explanation was given for the delay - The High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing amendment on the grounds that the plea was not merely inconsistent but mutually destructive, and that the delay was unexplained - Held that the High Court rightly refused to allow the amendment as the defendant could not simultaneously deny Isher Singh's title and plead a gift by Isher Singh after evidence had been adduced (Paras 1-2). B) Civil Procedure - Inconsistent Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - While a defendant may raise mutually inconsistent pleas in a written statement, such inconsistency cannot extend to mutually destructive pleas - The Court observed that the original written statement denied Isher Singh's title, so the proposed plea of gift by Isher Singh was fundamentally contradictory - Held that the High Court correctly rejected the amendment, and the Supreme Court found no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity warranting interference (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the proposed plea was mutually destructive of the existing plea and made belatedly without explanation; whether a defendant can raise mutually inconsistent pleas in the written statement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the High Court rightly refused to allow the amendment of the written statement. The Court found no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the High Court's order. The petitioner's proposed plea was mutually destructive of its earlier plea because it denied Isher Singh's title while simultaneously seeking to plead a gift made by Isher Singh. Additionally, there was no explanation for the belated amendment after evidence had been adduced and the matter was set for arguments.
Law Points
- Defendant can raise inconsistent pleas but not mutually destructive pleas
- Order 6 Rule 17 amendment after evidence without explanation of delay rightly refused
- denial of title and gift by same person mutually destructive
- no error of jurisdiction
