N. C. BANSAL versus UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR. on 25 January 2018

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 353

N. C. BANSAL

v.

UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 882 of 2018)

JANUARY 25, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 –Whether in the pending suit in question, the two Courts below werejustified in dismissing the three applications filed by the plaintiff (i)application u/Or.7, r.14 for filing of documents; (ii) application u/Or.6, r.17 seeking amendment in the plaint; (iii) application seekingdirections against the respondents for production of some originaldocuments – Held: The two applications filed by appellant underOr.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 should have been allowed and he shouldhave been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additionaldocuments – For the reason that Firstly, the suit is still at initialstage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the proposedamendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit;Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have been filed by theplaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the trialCourt as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these yearsit was sub judice in appeal – It is only after the Appellate courtremanded the case to the trial Court for its trial, the appellant filedthe applications in the suit – Fourthly, the Courts, in thesecircumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposedamendment – Insofar, as the third application for production ofdocuments is concerned, no argument advanced by the appellant,therefore, order of its rejection upheld.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 On perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that thetwo applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) under Or.6, r.17and Or.7, r.14 should have been allowed and he should have beenpermitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents.[Para 17][357-C]

1.2 It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the

353

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ainitial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, theproposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change thenature of suit; Thirdly, the applications could not be said to havebeen filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had beendismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stagesand for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only afterBthe Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for itstrial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit andsought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documentsin support thereof; Fourthly, the Courts, in these circumstances,should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.CSo far as the filing of documents is concerned, this applicationtoo should have been allowed on the same grounds. When thesuit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and whenthe documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondentsthemselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason whythe appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them. [Paras 18,D19][357-D-G]

2. So far as the third application for production of documentsby the respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced bythe appellant. Therefore, the order of its rejection by the twoCourts below is upheld. The two applications filed by theEappellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and theother under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed, however,subject to the appellant paying cost of the respondents. [Paras20, 22][357-H; 358-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.882 ofF2018.From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2016 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in CMM No.1223 of 2016

Shantanu Bansal, Nitin Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.GShrish Kumar Misra, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1.Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgmentHand order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 1223 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissedthe petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016 inCivil Suit No.7930 of 2016.

3. In order to decide the short question, it is not necessary to setout the facts in detail and mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.

4. The controversy involved in the appeal is whether the twoCourts below were justified in dismissing the three applications filed bythe plaintiff in a pending suit, namely, (i) application under Order 7 Rule14 of the Code for filing of documents, (ii) application under Order 6Rule17 of the Code seeking amendment in the plaint, and (iii) applicationseeking directions against the respondents for production of some originaldocuments.

5. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are thedefendants in the suit out of which this appeal arises.

6. The appellant (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No.252/2005 now renumbered as (C.S. No 7930/2016) against therespondents (defendants) in the Court of JSCC-Cum ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge (West) Delhi.

7. The appellant’s suit is for a declaration and permanent injunctionin relation to certain properties (hereinafter referred to as “the suitproperty”). The appellant has claimed the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’bleCourt be pleased - to pass the decree of declaration as thesaid property (at the second floor) bearing No.21 NWA ClubRoad, Punjabi Bagh Extn., New Delhi-110026 is not acollateral security or not a mortgage property under thedefendants and also to pass a decree of permanentinjunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendantsthereby restraining the defendants its agents, servant,attorneys, nominees etc. etc. from taking forciblepossession or selling of the said premises bearing No.21,NWA Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extn., New Delhi-110026(situated at second floor on plot no.21 in NVVA in the layoutplan of the Adarsh Shawan Co-op. House Building SocietyLtd. Colony known as Punjabi Bagh Extn. In the area ofViii Madipur, Delhi-110026 as shown in red colour in the A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Asite plan and from creating any interference in the use andenjoyment of the said property, in the interest of justice.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fitand proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and againstthe defendants along with the cost of the suit.”

B

8. The respondents have filed their written statement and deniedthe appellant’s claim set up in the plaint. The respondents, however, alsoraised certain legal objections regarding the maintainability of theappellant’s suit. The Trial Court upheld the objections raised by therespondent and accordingly dismissed the appellant’s suit vide judgment/Cdecree dated 20.09.2011 in the initial stage itself as not maintainable.

9. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal being R.C.A.121/14/11 before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, NewDelhi. By order dated 20.11.2014, the first Appellate Court allowed theappellant’s appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of theDTrial Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the suit onmerits.

10. It appears that the respondents (defendants) did not take upthe matter to the High Court against the order of the first AppellateCourt and, therefore, the case has now gone back to the Trial Court toEproceed with the trial in the suit.

11. After remand, the appellant (plaintiff), as mentioned above,filed three applications in his pending suit. One was under Order 7 Rule14 of Code seeking permission to file some additional documents, secondwas an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in theplaint and the third application was for a direction to the respondents forFproduction of some original documents.

12. The respondents (defendants) opposed the applications filedby the appellant. The Trial Court by order dated 21.09.2016 dismissedthe applications filed by the appellant (plaintiff).

13. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition under Article227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Delhi. By impugnedorder, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s (plaintiff’s) writ petitionand upheld the order of the Trial Court.

G

H

14. Against the said order, the appellant(plaintiff) has felt aggrievedand filed this appeal by special leave in this Court questioning its legalityand correctness.

15. Heard Mr. Shantanu Bansal, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and whilesetting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016 and also theimpugned order of the High Court allow the two applications filed by theplaintiff (appellant herein), namely, application filed under Order 7 Rule14 and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.

17. We have perused the pleadings and also the two applicationsunder consideration filed by the appellant. In our considered opinion,both the applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) should have beenallowed and he should have been permitted to amend the plaint and filethe additional documents.

18. It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage,i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Second, the proposed amendment soughtin the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the applicationscould not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because thesuit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initialstages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only afterthe Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial, theappellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought permissionto amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth,the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowingthe proposed amendment.

19. So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this applicationtoo should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we haveallowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is stillat its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documentsfiled are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtainedthrough RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowedto file them.

20. So far as the third application for production of documents bythe respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by the learnedcounsel for the appellant. We, therefore, uphold the order of its rejection A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aby the two Courts below. In other words, our order is confined toconsideration of only two applications mentioned above.

21. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed anyopinion either on the merits of the proposed amendment or on the allegeddocuments sought to be filed by the appellant. It is for the appellant toBprove the case set up in the plaint including the amended pleadings soalso to prove the documents and its relevance in accordance with lawby adducing adequate evidence.

22. In view of forgoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and isallowed. The impugned order is set aside so also the order datedC21.09.2016 is set aside to the extent indicated above. As a consequence,the two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed underOrder 7 Rule 14 and the other under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code areallowed, however, subject to the appellant paying a cost of Rs.10,000/-to the respondents. Let the cost be paid by the appellant to therespondents within one month.D

23. Let the amendment be incorporated in the plaint as proposedby the plaintiff in his application for amendment within one month. Therespondent is granted an opportunity to amend their written statementand make consequential amendment in reply to the amended plea of theplaintiff (appellant).

E

24. The appellant(plaintiff) is also allowed to file the additionaldocuments, as prayed by him. The respondent(defendant) is also grantedan opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal, if they so desire.

25. The Trial Court will then reframe the issues arising in the casein the light of the original pleadings and the amended pleadings and makeFan endeavor to decide the suit in accordance with law preferably withinone year as an outer limit uninfluenced by any observations made by theHigh Court in the impugned order and our observations in this order.

GAnkit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

H