9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases had been fixed on 4th August, 2020 for passing orders on the applications that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and under Order XV-A of CPC, however, the learned Trial Court adjourned the matter for arguments to be heard on the application filed by the respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Since the issues involved are the same in all these petitions, they are being disposed of vide this common order. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be the landlord of premises 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide orders dated 1st September, 2020, this Court directed the respondents/defendants to make payment of the entire arrears @ Rs.50,000/- per month, whether it was to be described as "rent" or "interest", and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. This order has been complied with. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, (1964) 5 SCR 946 to submit that the court when it reserves 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not and was only an "interlocutory/intermediate" order, for answering the question as to whether the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC could have been filed after the learned Trial Court had heard arguments on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, it would be useful to understand what is a "judgment" and what is an "order". 9. That "judgment" and "order" do not mean the same thing is obvious from the fact that the CPC itself defines them separately. "Judgment" has been defined 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond one is where these preliminary objections raised by the defendant are decided against him, and the suit proceeds further. These distinctions were no doubt, drawn in order to answer the question whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie. The Supreme Court also discussed "intermediary" or "interlocutory" judgment and order, again in order to answer whether a Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable. Depending on the effect of the decision taken by the trial judge, the court held that if such 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 adjournm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can join the proceedings if the stage of the case allows it, that is, arguments had not been heard finally and only judgment remains to be pronounced. 17. The exercise of powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC being "at any stage" of the proceedings is, therefore, not dependent on "hearing" as much as on the "stage". Ipso facto, therefore, the judgment of Arjun Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the disposal of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The "hearing" may conclude 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 " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly or in part, on account of the rejection of the application seeking judgment on the basis of admissions. Therefore also, this Court concludes that there was nothing to preclude the learned Trial Court from hearing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which was filed by the respondents/ defendants, even after the hearing on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was concluded. 22. It would also be useful to refer 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 Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
