Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri N. Sampath, was the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 5079/2009 pending before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The suit was filed for specific performance of a contract. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 7 under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to file an additional written statement. The application was intended to bring on record certain subsequent events and to clarify certain facts that had arisen after the filing of the original plaint. The trial court, by order dated 23.4.2015, rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff had already filed a detailed written statement and that the application was filed belatedly. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both sides. The court noted that the application was filed before the commencement of trial and that the plaintiff had a legitimate right to bring subsequent events to the notice of the court. The court found that the trial court's order was perverse and not based on any valid legal grounds. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the plaintiff to file the additional written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents. The court directed that the additional written statement be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Additional Written Statement - Order 8 Rule 9 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiff sought to file an additional written statement to incorporate subsequent events and clarify certain facts. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff had already filed a detailed written statement and that the application was filed belatedly. The High Court held that the trial court's order was perverse and not sustainable, as the plaintiff had a right to bring subsequent events on record and the application was filed before the commencement of trial. The court set aside the order and allowed the application, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-. (Paras 4-6) B) Civil Procedure - Discretion of Trial Court - Interference under Article 227 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court observed that the trial court's rejection of the application was not based on any valid legal grounds and amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct the error and ensure that justice is done. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 7) to file an additional written statement in a suit for specific performance, and whether such rejection warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.4.2015 passed on I.A. No. 7 in O.S. No. 5079/2009 is set aside. The plaintiff is permitted to file an additional written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents. The additional written statement shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 1A CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- amendment of pleadings
- additional written statement
- discretion of trial court
- procedural fairness
