Whether court should see merits of amendment at time of deciding application for amendment?

This being the position, the case which was sought to be set up in the proposed amendment was an elaboration of what was stated in the written statement. The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company (2003) 3 SCC 524, this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227. Allowing the amendment would not amount to the withdrawal of an admission contained in the written statement (as submitted by the respondent) since the amendment sought to elaborate upon an existing defence. It would also be necessary to note that it was on 21 September 2013 that an amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court, following which the appellant had filed a written statement to the amended plaint incorporating its defence. The amendment would cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO .19400 OF 2017
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8858 of 2017]

RAJ KUMAR BHATIA V SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA 

Dated:December 15, 2017.

Print Page

Whether amplification of pleadings is permissible by amendment of pleading?

Whether allowance of application for amendment of plaint filed by one of Respondents was valid - Held, amendment was only amplification of pleadings already on record - Amendment contained some subsequent developments and quantification of damages - Respondent had acted with due diligence - Merits of amendment could not have been gone into at this stage - Amendment was necessary for deciding real controversy in dispute - Therefore, allowance of application for amendment of plaint filed by one of Respondents was valid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 259 of 2015

Decided On: 31.08.2015

Rajaram Naik Vs. The State of Goa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.V. Bhadang, J.
Citation: 2016(1) MHLJ 770

Print Page