Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original plaintiff Morarji Hariram (since deceased), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13 December 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The Appellate Bench allowed Revision Application No. 82 of 2021 filed by original Defendant No.1 (M/s. Ramnik Dairy Farm and Ors.), setting aside the Trial Court's order dated 9 March 2021 which had rejected the defendant's application for amendment of written statement at Exhibit-80. The suit, R.A.E. & R. Suit No.789/1251 of 2003, was instituted by the original plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground of arrears of rent. The defendant contested the suit, and the plaint was amended thrice, with the defendant filing additional written statements. The original plaintiff died in 2015 while giving his deposition, and his legal representatives were leading evidence. During cross-examination, the defendant sought to confront the plaintiff's witness with a letter dated 13 October 2002, but the Trial Court disallowed it due to lack of pleadings. Consequently, the defendant filed an application at Exhibit-80 to amend the written statement to incorporate pleadings about the letter. The Trial Court rejected the application, but the Appellate Bench allowed it, imposing costs of Rs.5,000. The High Court upheld the Appellate Bench's order, holding that while amendments to written statements are generally allowed liberally, they must not cause grave injustice or irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff. In this case, the amendment introducing a new defence based on the letter could be compensated by costs, and the plaintiff would have an opportunity to rebut the new plea. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order allowing the amendment subject to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Liberal Approach - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court held that while amendments to written statements are generally allowed liberally, even inconsistent pleas, the amendment must not cause grave injustice or irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff. In this case, the amendment introducing a new defence based on a letter dated 13 October 2002 was allowed subject to costs of Rs.5,000, as the plaintiff could be compensated monetarily and the amendment did not displace the plaintiff completely. (Paras 6-8)
B) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The defendant sought to amend the written statement to plead that the original plaintiff had borrowed money from the defendant, thereby negating the liability to pay rent. The court allowed the amendment, noting that the defendant could raise alternative defences, but the plaintiff would have an opportunity to rebut the new plea. (Paras 5, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court erred in allowing the amendment of the written statement at Exhibit-80, which sought to introduce a new defence based on a letter dated 13 October 2002, after the original plaintiff had died and evidence was being led by legal representatives.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Appellate Bench's order dated 13 December 2023 allowing the amendment of the written statement at Exhibit-80, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Amendment of written statement
- liberal approach
- inconsistent pleas
- prejudice to plaintiff
- Section 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 27
Writ Petition No.1512 of 2024
Mr. Shravan M. Vyas for the Petitioners; Mr. Jamsheed Master with Ms Natasha Bhot for Respondent No.1
Morarji Hariram (since deceased) through legal representatives: Mrs. Nirmalaben Morarji Thakkar and Ors.
M/s. Ramnik Dairy Farm and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment of written statement in a suit for recovery of possession on ground of arrears of rent.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (legal representatives of original plaintiff) sought to set aside the Appellate Bench's order dated 13 December 2023 allowing the defendant's amendment application at Exhibit-80.
Filing Reason
The defendant sought to amend the written statement to introduce a new defence based on a letter dated 13 October 2002, which allegedly showed that the original plaintiff had borrowed money from the defendant, thereby negating the liability to pay rent.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (Single Judge of Small Causes Court) rejected the amendment application on 9 March 2021. The Appellate Bench allowed the amendment on 13 December 2023, setting aside the Trial Court's order.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Bench erred in allowing the amendment of the written statement at a belated stage when the plaintiff's legal representatives were leading evidence.
Whether the amendment would cause grave injustice or irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the amendment was sought belatedly after 21 years of litigation and after the original plaintiff had died, causing prejudice as the plaintiff could not rebut the new defence.
Respondent No.1 argued that amendments to written statements are liberally allowed, and the plaintiff could be compensated by costs.
Ratio Decidendi
While amendments to written statements are generally allowed liberally, even inconsistent pleas, the amendment must not cause grave injustice or irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff. In this case, the amendment introducing a new defence based on a letter dated 13 October 2002 was allowed subject to costs, as the plaintiff could be compensated monetarily and the amendment did not displace the plaintiff completely.
Judgment Excerpts
Ordinarily, the principles governing amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement being different, Defendants can be permitted to amend the written statement as it is permissible for Defendants to raise inconsistent pleas in the written statement. However, the said principle is subject to exception that the amendment of written statement should not cause grave injustice or irretrievable prejudice to the Plaintiff.
In the present case, the amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No.789/1251 of 2003 in 2003 for recovery of possession. The plaint was amended thrice (14 March 2016, 30 August 2016, 31 January 2018). The original plaintiff died in 2015 during deposition. Legal representatives were substituted and were leading evidence. In 2021, defendant filed application at Exhibit-80 to amend written statement to introduce letter dated 13 October 2002. Trial Court rejected it on 9 March 2021. Defendant filed Revision Application No.82 of 2021, which was allowed by Appellate Bench on 13 December 2023. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1512 of 2024 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 15(3)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 17
