you're reading...
legal issues

Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.= merely because an amendment may take the suit out of jurisdiction of that court is no ground for refusing an application preferred under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40624

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6273 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.11428 of 2012)
Tara V. Ganju & Anr. .. Appellants
Basant and Co. & Ors. .. Respondents


K. S. Radhakrishnan, J


Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein instituted a suit on the original side of the
High Court of Delhi which was registered as CS (OS) No.1861 of 1995 for a
decree of declaration, cancellation, permanent injunction, possession and
damages regarding property known as Lakshmi Niwas with the superstructure
and also for the consequential reliefs. Few applications for amendments
of the plaint were also filed earlier, followed by the present on
04.03.2005, before the trial court proposing amendment to the valuation
para of the plaint and also to bring on record a subsequent event. The
said application was filed proposing amendment enhancing the valuation of
the suit from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.25,25,530/-. Had the amendment been
allowed it would have resulted in ousting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
trial court and would have transferred the suit back to High Court. Yet
another amendment proposed, was to bring on record the subsequent event of
vacation of the suit property by tenant M/s Osram Surya (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Learned Additional Judge dismissed the application for amendment vide order
dated 06.10.2009, which was challenged by the appellant before the High
Court and the same was also rejected vide order dated 11.12.2009. Hence,
this appeal by special leave.

3. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that what weighed with the courts below was that if the amendment
was allowed then the trial court would cease to have jurisdiction and
matter should have passed over to the High Court. Learned counsel,
referring to the Judgment of this Court in Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar
Marketing Private Limited (2008) 17 SCC 671 submitted that merely because
an amendment may take the suit out of jurisdiction of that court is no
ground for refusing an application preferred under Order VI Rule 7 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on
the other hand, contended that there is no infirmity in the orders passed
by the courts below warranting interference. Frequent applications for
amendment in the plaint and subsequent challenge to the orders before the
highest court have caused considerable delay in the final disposal of the
suit in question. In order to give a quietus to the matter, counsel on
either side suggested that a time limit be fixed for early disposal of the

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, to give a
quietus to the litigation and to avoid further multiplicity of litigation,
we are inclined to allow the application for amendment preferred by the
appellant and direct the trial court to dispose of the suit in accordance
with law, at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly. Parties will
cooperate for the early disposal of the suit and the court would ensure
that unnecessary adjournments be not granted to the parties. Orders
passed by the courts below are accordingly set aside. The respondents are
given three weeks time to file their amended written statement. The appeal
is disposed of, as above, with no order as to costs.


(K.S. Radhakrishnan)


(Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

New Delhi,
|August 06, 2013 | |
| | |



About advocatemmmohan



Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,458 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: