2023 (1) TMI 444 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery of possession and the mesne profit/damages for wrongful and illegal occupation of the appellant - lease agreement for enjoyment and occupation of the demise premises for a specified time which expired by efflux of time in the year 2010 - HELD THAT - The appellant did not challenge the order permitting the amendment to be carried out in the plaint. However, they chose to remain absent and did not contest the suit. Astonishingly, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the moment Supreme Court has used the expression suit it must be construed as an un-amended suit and not the amended suit. Such misunderstanding of the tenet of the order of the Supreme Court is laudable as it is beyond any doubt that the expression suit includes the suit with the amendment, if carried out subsequently, as the amendment, if allowed, relates back to the date of the institution of the suit unless the Court expressly indicated not to be so. The doctrine of relation back is the uniform rule in the case of amendment unless interdicted by an order of the Court. We have no hesitation in our mind that the word suit contained in the order of the Supreme Court cannot be given a restrictive meaning as it would go against the spirit of the law relating to the amendment of the pleading. It is also beyond cavil of doubt that the judgment delivered by the Court should not be construed as a statute nor the interpretive process applicable to the statutory interpretation should be applicable thereto - We do not find that such misconception in the mind of the learned advocate for the appellant stands as an obstacle in upholding that the suit would mean the suit as it stands on the date of the passing of the final decree and if any amendment having been carried out, it would be regarded as a pleading in the suit and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. By virtue of an amendment, the relief in this regard was incorporated and the trial Court finds that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove such claim and, in fact, granted relief in their favour which cannot be said to be per se illegal nor beyond the scope of the suit - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, interpretation of judicial orders, amendment of pleading, scope of appeal against ex parte decree

The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta dealt with various issues, starting with the considerable delay in filing the appeal. The court acknowledged the delay but emphasized the importance of adjudication on merit rather than dismissing on technical grounds. The appellant, who had entered into a lease agreement, was restricted in their defense due to the ex parte decree challenged in the appeal. The court analyzed the history of the suit, including negotiations for a fresh lease agreement and subsequent legal proceedings regarding interest on arrears of rent. The Division Bench and the Supreme Court had previously addressed the issue of entitlement to interest, directing the lower court to decide the matter expeditiously. The respondent later sought an amendment to incorporate the relief of interest in the pleading, which was allowed. The court clarified that the term "suit" in the Supreme Court's order included the suit as amended, as per the doctrine of relation back in amendment rules. The appellant's attempt to introduce new facts beyond the scope of the pleading was rejected, as the appeal was against an ex parte decree. Ultimately, the court found the relief granted to the respondent based on the amended pleading to be legal and within the suit's scope, dismissing the appeal and imposing costs for the delay in execution proceedings.