Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Columbia Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., was the original defendant No.9 in a suit filed by respondent No.1, M/s Maharashtra Industries, a registered partnership firm, under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur. The suit was filed on 21/05/2009, alleging that the suit property in the plaintiff's possession was wrongfully and illegally taken over by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the intervening night of 14/05/2009 and 15/05/2009 with the help of anti-social elements. The petitioner was subsequently added as a party to the suit. During the trial, after issues were framed and evidence was led, the petitioner filed several applications: (i) for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, (ii) for additional evidence and recall of a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, (iii) for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, and (iv) for recall of a witness. The trial court rejected all these applications. The petitioner also challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined each application and found that the courts below had exercised their discretion judiciously and there was no perversity or jurisdictional error. The amendment of written statement was sought at a belated stage after evidence had commenced, and the proposed amendments would introduce inconsistent pleas and change the nature of defence. The application for additional evidence and recall of witness was an attempt to fill gaps in evidence. The application for local investigation was unnecessary as the issues could be decided on existing evidence. The High Court also noted that the petitioner had already been impleaded and the applications were not for impleadment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment of Written Statement - The petitioner sought to amend written statement to incorporate new facts and defences after issues were framed and evidence was led. The trial court rejected the application as belated and likely to cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The High Court held that the amendment would change the nature of defence and introduce inconsistent pleas, and the courts below had correctly exercised discretion. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Recall of Witness - The petitioner sought to recall a witness and lead additional evidence after the plaintiff's evidence was closed. The trial court rejected the application as an attempt to fill gaps in evidence. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the petitioner had ample opportunity to lead evidence earlier. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Local Investigation - Order 26 Rule 9 CPC - The petitioner sought appointment of a court commissioner for local investigation to determine possession and identity of suit property. The trial court rejected the application as unnecessary and likely to delay the trial. The High Court affirmed, holding that the issues could be decided on existing evidence. (Paras 21-23) D) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - The petitioner, originally defendant No.9, was added as a party to the suit. The High Court noted that the petitioner had already been impleaded and the applications were not for impleadment but for other reliefs. (Para 4) E) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 33 - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming that the suit property was illegally taken over by defendants. The High Court observed that the suit was maintainable and the courts below had jurisdiction. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and appellate court rejecting the petitioner's applications for amendment of written statement, additional evidence, local investigation, and recall of witnesses, and allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint, suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the trial court and appellate court. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and held that the courts below had exercised their discretion judiciously.
Law Points
- Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC
- Order 14 Rule 5 CPC
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- inherent powers of court
- amendment of pleadings
- additional evidence
- local investigation
- recall of witness
- impleadment
- res judicata
- abuse of process of law.
