Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three interim applications filed by the original plaintiffs in Commercial Summary Suit No. 13 of 2011, Commercial Summary Suit No. 57 of 2012, and Commercial Summary Suit No. 66 of 2012, seeking to amend their respective plaints. The plaintiffs, Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd and another, had filed suits for recovery of monies lent to the defendant, Joyce Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The proposed amendments sought to incorporate averments regarding admissions and acknowledgments of liability by the defendant, based on documents that were already part of the record. The plaintiffs argued that the amendments were necessary to obviate any technical argument by the defendant that there was no pleading in the plaint regarding the defendant's admission of liability. The defendant opposed the amendments, contending that they introduced a new cause of action and that the plaintiffs lacked due diligence. The court, presided over by Justice Abhay Ahuja, noted that the trial had not yet commenced, as the plaintiffs had not led evidence. Therefore, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which restricts amendments after the commencement of trial unless the court finds that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence, was not attracted. The court held that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but only elaborated on the existing cause of action for recovery of money lent. The court also rejected the defendant's argument regarding lack of due diligence, observing that the documents sought to be included were already part of the record and the amendments were to clarify the pleadings. The court allowed the amendments, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 in each application, to be paid to the defendant within two weeks. The court also directed that the amended plaints be filed within two weeks and that the defendant would be entitled to file an additional written statement within four weeks thereafter.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Amendment - The court allowed amendment of plaints in three commercial summary suits for recovery of money lent, where the amendments sought to incorporate averments regarding admissions and acknowledgments of liability by the defendant based on documents already on record. The court held that since trial had not commenced, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not attracted, and the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but only elaborated on the existing one. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs lacked due diligence, noting that the documents sought to be included were already part of the record and the amendments were to obviate technical objections. The court found that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient cause for the amendment. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proposed amendments to the plaints, seeking to incorporate averments regarding admissions and acknowledgments of liability by the defendant, should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, especially when the trial has not yet commenced.
Final Decision
The court allowed the interim applications, permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaints in terms of the draft amendments, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 in each application to the defendant within two weeks. The amended plaints to be filed within two weeks, and the defendant may file additional written statement within four weeks thereafter.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
- commencement of trial
- due diligence
- cause of action
- admission of liability
- commercial summary suit
