9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2240 - HC - Indian LawsPresentation of present petition as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - It has been specifically observed to the effect that the nature of the suit would not change by virtue of granting the amendment application where the property has initially been valued at 13, 50, 000/- but as the market value was at 1, 20, 00, 000/- the applicant plaintiff therein had submitted an application for amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint and taking the same into account the amendment sought was granted. In view of the verdicts of the Supreme Court in Mount Mary Enterprises v. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Limited 2015 (1) TMI 1398 - SUPREME COURT Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar Marketing Private Limited 2003 (8) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT and SUBHASHINI MALIK VERSUS S.K. GANDHI AND ORS. 2016 (9) TMI 1613 - DELHI HIGH COURT and also the factum that the amendment sought by the plaintiff does not in any manner prejudice the defendant No. 2 i.e. the present petitioner in any manner and does not change the nature of the suit also in any manner and taking into account the factum that defendant No. 2 has himself raised the issue in relation to the aspect of under valuation of the suit property and for the purpose of the court fees and jurisdiction qua which issue no. 8 was framed at the time of framing of the issues coupled with the factum that virtually the trial has yet to commence in as much as the testimonies of the witnesses are yet to be led it is held that there is no merit in the prayer made by the petitioner seeking the setting aside of the impugned order dated. 2.6.2018 qua the amendment sought by the respondent No. 1 in relation to the para 19 of the plaint. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Challenge to the orders dated 2.6.2018 and 5.7.2018 regarding amendment in the plaint. 3. Valuation of the suit property for court fees and jurisdiction. 4. Substitution of the authorized representative of the plaintiff. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: At the outset, the petitioner requested that the present petition be treated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, citing the precedent set in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Vijay Mahajan, 237 (2017) DLT 158. The respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting party, did not oppose this request. Consequently, the court directed the Registry to renumber the petition accordingly. 2. Challenge to the orders dated 2.6.2018 and 5.7.2018 regarding amendment in the plaint: The petitioner challenged the orders of the Additional District Judge-02, Karkardooma Courts, which allowed amendments to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The amendments pertained to the valuation of the suit property for court fees and jurisdiction and the substitution of the plaintiff's authorized representative. The trial court had observed that the plaintiff is the master of his case, and the valuation of the relief is within the plaintiff's domain, subject to the provisions of the Court Fees Act and the Suit Valuation Act. The trial had not commenced, and the defendant No. 2 (the petitioner) had previously sought amendments in the written statement before the plaintiff filed for amendments. 3. Valuation of the suit property for court fees and jurisdiction: The petitioner argued that the amendment regarding the valuation of the suit property should not be permitted, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh, which differentiates between the court fees payable by executants and non-executants of a deed. The petitioner also cited Anuradha Gupta vs. Veena Devi and Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta to support their claim that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was essentially forum shopping and should not be allowed. The petitioner further argued that the trial had already commenced, and there was no due diligence exercised by the plaintiff before seeking the amendment, as per Vidyabai and Ors. v. Padmalatha and Anr. 4. Substitution of the authorized representative of the plaintiff: The petitioner initially challenged the substitution of the authorized representative of the plaintiff allowed by the impugned order dated 2.6.2018. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel submitted that they no longer pressed this prayer. Court's Findings: The court considered the rival submissions and the precedents cited by both parties. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Mount Mary Enterprises v. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Limited and Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar Marketing Private Limited, which support the view that amendments should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the defendant. The court noted that the amendment sought by the plaintiff did not change the nature of the suit and did not prejudice the defendant No. 2 (the petitioner). The court also observed that the trial had yet to commence, and the issue of under-valuation raised by the defendant No. 2 was already framed as issue No. 8. Conclusion: The court found no merit in the petitioner's prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 2.6.2018 regarding the amendment in the plaint. The petition was dismissed, and a copy of the order was sent to the trial court. The court clarified that nothing stated in the order should be construed as an expression on the merits or demerits of the suit or the evidence related to issue No. 8.
|
