2013 (4) TMI 880 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order allowing amendment of plaint in a property dispute.

Summary:
The appeal was filed against the High Court's order setting aside the City Civil Court's decision to dismiss the Chamber Summons seeking to amend the plaint in a property dispute. The plaintiffs, allegedly members of a Co-operative Housing Society, challenged the re-development of the Society's property in various courts but were unsuccessful. They then filed a suit in the City Civil Court challenging the amalgamation of plots and seeking various directions regarding the property development. The City Civil Court rejected their Notice of Motion and Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint, stating that the proposed amendments were within the plaintiffs' knowledge at the time of filing the suit and that they failed to challenge certain aspects earlier. The High Court set aside this decision, allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court erred in its decision, as the plaintiffs were aware of the relevant facts before filing the suit, and the proposed amendments were belated and an afterthought. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's decision.

In the amendment petition, the plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of a conveyance deed dated 08.02.1989 until 2009, alleging forgery and manipulation. However, it was found that the plaintiff was an office-bearer of the Society at the time and was authorized to complete the transaction. The plaintiffs allegedly became aware of the deed in 2009 but did not seek relief in the plaint filed in 2010. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in allowing the belated and after-thought amendments, as the plaintiffs were aware of the transaction before filing the suit. The trial court's decision to dismiss the Chamber Summons seeking amendment was upheld, and the High Court's order was set aside.

The main ground for seeking relief through amendment was the plaintiffs' alleged lack of awareness of the conveyance deed dated 08.02.1989 until 2009. The plaintiffs claimed forgery and manipulation in the deed, stating it was impossible for the deceased individual to execute the deed posthumously. However, it was established that the plaintiff, as an office-bearer of the Society, was aware of and authorized to complete the transaction. The Supreme Court found the plaintiffs' claims in the amendment petition to be incorrect and belated, leading to the dismissal of the Chamber Summons seeking amendment.

The City Civil Court initially dismissed the Chamber Summons seeking to amend the plaint, stating that the proposed amendments were within the plaintiffs' knowledge at the time of filing the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to challenge certain aspects earlier and that the proposed amendments were not necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. The High Court, however, set aside this decision, allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court, upon review, found the High Court's decision to be erroneous, as the proposed amendments were belated and did not serve the purpose of determining the real dispute. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's decision.