Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 – Whether in the pending suit in question, the two Courts below were justified in dismissing the three applications filed by the plaintiff (i) application u/Or.7, r.14 for filing of documents; (ii) application u/Or.6, r.17 seeking amendment in the plaint; (iii) application seeking directions against the respondents for production of some original documents – Held: The two applications filed by appellant under Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 should have been allowed and he should have been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents – For the reason that Firstly, the suit is still at initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal – It is only after the Appellate court remanded the case to the trial Court for its trial, the appellant filed the applications in the suit – Fourthly, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment – Insofar, as the third application for production of documents is concerned, no argument advanced by the appellant, therefore, order of its rejection upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) under Or.6, r.17 and Or.7, r.14 should have been allowed and he should have been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents. [Para 17][357-C]
1.2 It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; Fourthly, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment. So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds. When the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them. [Paras 18, 19][357-D-G]
2. So far as the third application for production of documents by the respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by the appellant. Therefore, the order of its rejection by the two Courts below is upheld. The two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the other under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed, however, subject to the appellant paying cost of the respondents. [Paras 20, 22][357-H; 358-C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.