2006 (12) TMI 546 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court.
2. Validity of the removal and appointment of Acharyas.
3. Amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
4. Commencement of trial and due diligence.
5. Procedural compliance and interpretation of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court:
The appellants initially challenged the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court in Civil Suit No. 144 of 2002. The Civil Court dismissed their application, and the High Court also rejected their civil revision application. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), and then to the Civil Judge at Nadiad, where it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002.

2. Validity of the Removal and Appointment of Acharyas:
The dispute centered around the legality of the removal of Ajendraprasad Narejdraprasad Pandey as Acharya and the appointment of Rakeshprasadji Mahendraprasadji. The High Court and the Supreme Court emphasized the need to address whether the removal and subsequent appointment were valid. The courts noted that the legality of these actions was intimately linked and required a thorough examination.

3. Amendment of the Written Statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC:
The appellants sought to amend their written statement in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002. The trial court rejected their application on the grounds that the trial had commenced and the appellants had not demonstrated due diligence in raising the matter earlier. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited.

4. Commencement of Trial and Due Diligence:
The appellants argued that the trial had not commenced as the affidavit of examination-in-chief was not equivalent to recording evidence. They contended that the trial commences only when the court rules on the proof and admissibility of evidence or takes evidence by cross-examination. The court, however, noted that the issues were framed on 28.09.2005, and the affidavit of examination-in-chief was filed on 21.11.2005. The application for amendment was filed on 24.11.2005, indicating a lack of due diligence on the part of the appellants.

5. Procedural Compliance and Interpretation of the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC:
The appellants contended that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be interpreted purposively and not mechanically. They argued that the proviso is directory and not mandatory, and that the word 'shall' should be interpreted as 'may.' The court, however, emphasized that the proviso enacts an embargo against granting leave to amend after the commencement of the trial unless due diligence is demonstrated. The court found that the appellants had not provided sufficient reasons to show that they could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants were not entitled to any relief due to their lack of due diligence and the introduction of new and inconsistent pleas. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial on a priority basis and dispose of the case on merits. The judgment highlighted the need for procedural compliance and the importance of advancing the cause of justice without undue delays.