1991 (10) TMI 320 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to Order 7 Rule 11.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the question of whether Order 6 Rule 17 is restricted or controlled by Order 7 Rule 11. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to claim license fee post-revocation, which the defendant argued disclosed no cause of action. The defendant contended that Order 7 Rule 11 should lead to the rejection of the plaint without amendment, citing previous court judgments in support.

2. The court rejected the defendant's argument, emphasizing the court's duty to deliver substantial justice through amendments. Quoting Bowmen, L.J. in Cropper v. Smith, the court highlighted that courts exist to decide rights, not punish for mistakes, and amendments are essential to determine the real controversy between parties. The court stressed the importance of allowing amendments to avoid injustice and ensure the real matter in controversy is addressed.

3. The judgment further discussed the necessity of extending the principles of Order 6 Rule 17 in the interest of justice. It questioned the need to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 when amendments could rectify the defect and prevent delays and additional costs associated with filing a fresh suit. Procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice, and the court cited precedents from Bombay and Jammu & Kashmir High Courts, along with the Supreme Court, supporting the view that amendments should be allowed to cure defective pleadings.

4. The court rejected the notion that Order 6 Rule 17 should be ousted by Order 7 Rule 11, as it believed such an approach would hinder justice rather than promote it. The judgment emphasized the importance of not obstructing the course of justice and allowing amendments to rectify defects in pleadings to serve the interests of justice.

5. Lastly, the court clarified that Order 6 Rule 17 is not restricted or controlled by Order 7 Rule 11, affirming the importance of allowing amendments to ensure justice is served effectively. The judgment concluded by distinguishing previous court judgments as being confined to their specific facts and not setting a broader precedent for disallowing amendments.