Naresh Kumar v. Meer Singh

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2018 by which the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected by the Trial Court. The suit has had a long and chequered history. The suit was filed for specific performance in 2005 and Mr. Naresh Kumar – the Petitioner herein/Defendant (hereinafter „Defendant‟) and Ms. Raj Rani filed applications for impleadment in 2006. The said applications were initially dismissed. However, the ld. Division Bench vide order dated 28th November, 2012 allowed the impleadment in the following terms:

2. As per the above order, a limited right was given to the Petitioner herein who was one of the persons seeking impleadment to file a written statement and to participate in the proceedings. However, it appears from the events that have transpired that the Petitioner filed a written statement which was according to the Respondent/Plaintiff beyond the directions of the ld. Division Bench. The same was rejected initially but was thereafter allowed by the Division Bench, finally culminating in an order dated 2nd February, 2015 passed by the Supreme Court. Thus, between 2012 when the initial written statement was directed to be filed till 2015, a three-year delay was caused by the Petitioner herein in filing the written statement.

3. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the District Court and additional issues were framed. The Plaintiff filed its affidavits by way of evidence and a Local Commissioner was appointed for recording the evidence. An application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was then filed by Mr. Naresh Kumar at the time when the Plaintiff’s evidence had commenced. The same was rejected by the Trial Court. The said order dated 23rd May, 2018 rejecting the application for amendment is under challenge before this Court.

4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner seeks to urge that the amendment which has been sought now had arisen because some questions were not permitted to be put to the Plaintiff’s witness in cross-examination. The ld. counsel has taken the Court through the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to impress upon the Court the manner in which knowledge was acquired by the Plaintiff of the share of the Petitioner/Defendant, by way of the amendment. It is thus prayed that the Defendant does not wish to recall any of the Plaintiff’s witnesses but should be allowed to lead evidence on the basis of the facts now sought to be included in the written statement.

5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Plaintiff vehemently opposes the application for amendment being allowed. The ld. counsel has relied upon the considerable delay that has been caused by the Defendant in this matter since inception to submit that the adjudication of the suit is indefinitely delayed. It is further submitted that at the time when the initial interim order was passed, the entire sale consideration as per the agreement to sell is lying deposited and till date, the Plaintiff is unable to enjoy the fruits of the purchase of the property by the Plaintiff.

6. The suit is more than 15 years old. The Court has perused the various orders passed at different stages by the ld. Single Judge, ld. Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no doubt that initially the Defendant was given a restricted right to file a written statement and the written statement which was filed was beyond the liberty given by this Court. That led to considerable delay in the matter. The evidence has commenced in 2017 by the Plaintiff and has in fact concluded as of 7th September, 2018. Though the application for amendment was filed in 2017, it seems to have been urged and pressed only after the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses has concluded, as the submission even today is that some of the questions were disallowed in cross-examination and hence the amendment ought to be allowed.

7. The initial order of the ld. Division Bench dated 28th November, 2012 is clear and categorical that only a limited is being given to the Petitioner/Defendant to file the written statement. The written statement being sought to be amended now is not only a hopelessly barred but is also beyond the liberty which was initially granted. The Trial Court has therefore rightly dismissed the application for amendment. After the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s evidence, such an amendment cannot be permitted in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

8. In view of the fact that the evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff is already concluded and keeping in mind the fact that the suit is of 2005, it is directed that recordal of evidence of the Petitioner/Defendant shall now be concluded on or before 30th April, 2020. The adjudication of the suit shall be concluded within four months thereafter. The present petition is dismissed with Rs.10,000/- costs to be paid to the Plaintiff on or before next date.

9. The Trial Court shall ensure that no further applications are entertained which derail the trial and the timelines set out above are adhered to.