9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and the other not determining the main issue with any finality. If such orders have been passed to help with the progress of the case, they may dispose of a specific question finally, but without finally disposing of the dispute. There is yet another category of orders , which, if decided one way, would result in the determination of the rights of the parties finally, but, if determined in any other way, would result in the continuation of the proceedings. Such orders have been described as intermediate or quasi final orders . Order XII relates to admissions and Rule 6 provides that the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or on its own motion, without waiting for a determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit. Where a judgment is pronounced, a decree is to be drawn up. In other words, Order XII Rule 6 of CPC does not per se provide for a final determination of the rights between the parties, though it may result in such a final determination. It is the considered view of this Court that since the purpose of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es No. F-419 admeasuring 200 square yards, part of Khasra No. 814; No. F-15, ad-measuring 244 Sq. yds. part of Khasra No.811, 813/2 and 814; No. P- 80B, ad-measuring 163 Sq. Yds. part of Khasra No.812/2; No. A-25, admeasuring 396 Sq. Yds., (92+304) and 342 Sq. Yds. (196+146); and, No.464, ad-measuring 283 Sq. Yds. part of Khasra No.782, all situated at Molarband, Post Office, Badarpur Road, New Delhi. By means of the respective Registered Lease Deeds dated 13th June, 2018 and 11th June, 2018, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that it had inducted the respondents/defendants as tenants in the said properties at a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-. The civil suits were filed on 25th May, 2019 being CS DJ/471/2019, CS DJ/467/2019, CS DJ/474/2019, CS DJ/469/2019 and CS DJ/473/2019 respectively, for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits against the respondents/defendants on the ground that they had defaulted in paying the monthly rent for more than two months consecutively. Written statements had been filed in all the suits by the respondents/defendants and thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed applications under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking judgment on admissions, poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a judgment, it does so under Order XX Rule 1 of CPC, after the hearing is completed. In the present case, the record discloses that the arguments were heard and the written submissions were filed in respect of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which sought a judgment on admission and thus, there was no hearing left and, it was not permissible to move any application during the interregnum, from the conclusion of the hearing till the pronouncement of the orders. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had erred in not first disposing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, and rather accepting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, and further fixing the hearing on that application. Reliance has also been placed on this Court s judgment in Satya Bhushan Kaura v. Vijaya Myne, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1611. 6. Mr. Ashwin Vaish, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants however, argued that in none of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, has the inter-play between Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC been decided. Learned counsel submitted that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not akin to Order IX Rule 7 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned under Section 2(9) of CPC as below: judgment means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. while an Order has been defined under Section 2(14) of CPC as under: - order means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. 10. It is, therefore, clear that an order is something that does not result in a decree or, therefore, a final conclusion of a matter, though a judgment may include an order . The term judgment indicates a judicial decision given on the merits of the disputes brought before the Court. It determines the rights of the parties finally. In contrast, an order may not be so but could be an interlocutory one, if it does not determine or decide the rights of the parties once and for all. Thus, there are, broadly speaking, two kinds of orders , one, that is in the nature of a final order and the other not determining the main issue with any finality. If such orders have been passed to help with the progress of the case, they may dispose of a specific question finally, but without finally disposing of the dispute. There is yet another category of orders , which, if decided one wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an order vitally affected a valuable right of the defendant, it would be treated as a judgment , such as, where leave to defend is declined. However, where the order, though affecting the plaintiff adversely, does not cause him direct or immediate prejudice, but only remote prejudice, or damage was of a minimal nature as his rights to prove his case and show the defence to be false still remained, the order would not partake of the characteristics of a judgment . 13. It was further observed that not every interlocutory order can be regarded as a judgment , as there were many orders that were routine in nature, such as, condonation of delay in filing the documents, orders refusing adjournment, orders refusing to summon additional witness, etc., which may involve exercise of jurisdiction in respect of a procedural matter against one party or the other. 14. On the other hand, interlocutory orders which would have the effect of depriving a party of a valuable right, though purely discretionary, may contain attributes and characteristics of finality and could be treated as a judgment . The court referred to the exercise of discretion of the courts in respect of an appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude once the judgment is reserved. But, the pronouncement of judgment is also a stage, just as on the filing of an appeal, that would also be a stage in the life of a suit. 18. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that when the learned Trial Court reserved orders on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, the hearing had come to an end and therefore, as held in Arjun Singh (supra), there was no scope left for the respondents/defendants to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied upon the judgment of this Court in Satya Bhushan Kaura (supra) to contend that reservation of orders on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC would amount to reservation of a judgment and cessation of hearing . A perusal of the said judgment would reveal that this court had actually disposed of, on merits, the application moved under Section 151 CPC to bring to the notice of the court the filing of another suit, after it had heard arguments on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and reserved the orders thereon. While doing so, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. This, again refers to a stage of the proceedings and not the hearing , as in Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. Thus, an application for amendment may be filed by either party at any stage of the proceedings . Of course, if the trial has commenced, the court may not allow such amendments, unless there was due diligence. As noticed hereinbefore, the stage of the case can be at the time of pronouncement as well as beyond, in the form of an appeal. Thus, an application for amendment can be filed upto the pronouncement of judgment and even after filing the appeal. 23. A similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court and the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). In Om Rice Mill v. Banaras State Bank Ltd., 1999 SCC OnLine All 966, the High Court of Allahabad, while relying on the judgments in Roe v. Davies, (1876) 2 Ch D 729, 733, Baker Ltd. v. Medway Co., (1958) 1 WLR 1216 (CA), Badri v. S. Kripal, AIR 1981 Madh Pra 228 and B.N. Das v. Bijaya, AIR 1982 Orissa 145, observed that the expression used in Order IX Rule 7 of CPC and that in Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are completely different and no analogy could be drawn in order to interpret the term at any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
