Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Rajaram Rau Patil, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 12th March 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2002. The suit was filed by respondent No.1, Shri Marcel de Pieade Braganza, for eviction of the petitioner from certain premises. The petitioner had filed an application dated 20th February 2003 seeking amendment of his written statement and for adjournment to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a written statement earlier and that the application was filed belatedly. The High Court examined the record and found that the petitioner had filed a written statement on 30th September 2002, which was taken on record. The court noted that the trial court's order was based on a mistaken belief that no written statement was filed. The High Court held that the rejection of the application for amendment and adjournment was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The court observed that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy, and that a party should not be denied the opportunity to cross-examine a witness. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement and to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between parties, and refusal to allow amendment may result in injustice. (Paras 5-6)
B) Civil Procedure - Adjournment - Order 17 Rule 1 CPC - The court held that adjournments should not be refused if it results in denial of opportunity to cross-examine a witness, especially when the party has shown diligence. (Paras 7-8)
C) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - The court held that a defendant should be given an opportunity to file a written statement before the suit proceeds to trial, and refusal may violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement and for adjournment to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, thereby denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 12th March 2003, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement and to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The trial court was also directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Adjournment
- Written statement
- Cross-examination
- Opportunity of hearing
- Principles of natural justice
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (06) 11
Writ Petition No. 129 of 2003
Shri M.S. Sonak for petitioner; Shri M.S. Usgaonkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar for respondents No.3(a) to 3(h); Shri P.A. Kholkar for respondent No.7
Shri Marcel de Pieade Braganza and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order of the trial court rejecting an application for amendment of written statement and for adjournment to cross-examine a witness in an eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the trial court's order dated 12th March 2003 and direction to allow the amendment and adjournment.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement and for adjournment to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, allegedly on the ground that no written statement was filed.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had passed an order on 12th March 2003 rejecting the application dated 20th February 2003.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement?
Whether the trial court erred in refusing adjournment for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had filed a written statement on 30th September 2002, which was taken on record, and the trial court's order was based on a mistaken belief that no written statement was filed.
The petitioner contended that the amendment was necessary to bring out the real controversy and that the adjournment was sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, which is a valuable right.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between parties, and refusal to allow amendment may result in injustice. Further, adjournments should not be refused if it results in denial of opportunity to cross-examine a witness, especially when the party has shown diligence. The court also held that a defendant should be given an opportunity to file a written statement before the suit proceeds to trial, and refusal may violate principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not filed any written statement.
The amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties.
The refusal to grant adjournment for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness would result in denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend the suit.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order dated 12th March 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2002. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application dated 20th February 2003 for amendment of written statement and for adjournment to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The High Court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 9th June 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 17, Order 17 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1
