Abhishek Mundra vs Navratan Mal January and Others

Atul Kumar Jain, J.—In this petition which has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-plaintiff Abhishek Mundra has prayed that the order dt. 14.5.2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in C.S. No. 67/2007 titled as Abhishek Mundra v. Navratan Mal Jain be quashed and set aside whereby the application filed by defendant No. 1 (Navratan Mal Jain non-petitioner No. 1) under O. VI R. 17 CPC was accepted, though with costs. The that Court has observed in its order that to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and for complete and final, adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the amendment in the written statement is fully justified and it was further observed that in the trial Court even the plaintiff''s evidence has not been started, so the amendment cannot be said to have been prayed with delay. I have heard both the parties and I have perused the petition, I have perused the documents submitted by the parties in the matter. I have also perused the order 5 dt. 6.8.2009 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4114/2007.

The petitioner has relied upon the following ruling:--

Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, .

In this matter, no ground had been raised in the application filed under O. VI R. 17 CPC that despite due diligence the new facts could not have been raised by the applicant at the time when they had first filed their pleadings. In such circumstances, the proposed amendment was held hit by the amended proviso to O. VI R. 17 CPC.

On the other hand, the non-petitioners have relied upon the following ruling:--

State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council, .

In this case, it was held that looking to Section 16(2)(b), Amendment Act of 2002 CPC, amended proviso to O. VI R. 17 CPC will not be applicable to old suits. In this matter, the suit was filed on 3.1.2002 while the amendment in O. VI R. 17 CPC was made applicable from 1.7.2002.

I have gone through the rulings submitted by the parties. Even before the amendment, the position was practically the same and in the interests of justice, but complete and efficacious adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the amendment was permissible.

It has been held in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K. Modi and Others, that it is primary duty of the Court to decide whether the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties and if it is so, then the amendment should be allowed. It was also held that merits of proposed amendments are not to be gone into at the stage of allowing amendments. In Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Others, , it was held that the delay only, will not be a ground to refuse the prayer for amendment if the amendment is otherwise justified.

In Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, , it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that jurisdiction under the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised generally in private dispute. This jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised only for promotion of the public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger interest. It was further held in that case that an improper and frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dt. 14.5.2012 cannot be disturbed by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction and hence the petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately.