Arvind Kaur and Another vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-1), passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-14) moved by the plaintiffs for amendment of plaint. Plaintiffs in the suit have inter alia claimed permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited from terminating ad-hoc dealership in the name of plaintiffs. In amendment application (Annexure P-14), the plaintiffs have alleged that defendants have taken decision to terminate the ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2. By amendment of plaint, the plaintiffs want to challenge the said action of the defendants alleging the same to be illegal. Necessary facts to challenge the said decision, along with prayer for the same, are sought to be pleaded by amendment of plaint.

Defendants, by filing reply (Annexure P-15), contested the amendment application and denied the averments made therein. It was inter alia pleaded that till date, no decision for cancellation/termination of ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2 had been taken by the defendants. It was also pleaded that this Court (High Court) has already directed the defendants not to cancel/terminate the ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2 till decision of the suit.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that defendants have in fact taken decision to terminate the ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2, as is also evident from reply (Annexure P-13) filed by the defendants in C.R. No. 1334 of 2011, and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint is necessary.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, which is patently untenable. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to refer to any plea in the reply (Annexure P-13) to depict that the defendants have already cancelled the ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2. On the contrary, defendants pleaded in reply (Annexure P-13) that ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2 is required to be terminated in view of Government policy decision vide letter dated 06.09.2006, but the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit, in which interim injunction was granted by the trial court. It would depict that the defendants had not yet taken any decision to cancel the ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2, although according to defendants, ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2 is liable to be terminated. The defendants, in their reply (Annexure P-15) to the amendment application, have further clarified this fact by specifically pleading that till date, no decision for cancellation or termination of ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2 had been taken by the defendants.

In view thereof, the proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed because no decision to cancel or terminate the ad-hoc dealership of plaintiff no. 2 has yet been taken, and therefore, question to challenge the said decision by amendment of plaint does not arise. The amendment application filed by the plaintiffs has, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the trial court.

In addition to the aforesaid, reply (Annexure P-13) to the revision petition was filed sometime in July 2011, but amendment application (Annexure P-14) is dated 29.08.2013. The amendment application has thus been moved after delay of more than two years, with mala fide intention. Reason for moving the amendment application is that it was last opportunity for plaintiffs'' evidence at own responsibility and since they could not lead their evidence, they adopted the tactic of filing amendment application to seek further adjournment. The amendment application was moved after commencement of trial, and therefore, the amendment application could also not be allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It is also worth mentioning that in view of temporary injunction, the ad-hoc dealership could not be terminated. Plaintiffs were very well aware of this fact. In spite thereof, they have taken vague plea in the amendment application that ad-hoc dealership has since been terminated. However, neither date of any decision of termination of the ad-hoc dealership has been mentioned, nor there is any material to depict that the ad-hoc dealership has been cancelled. It is, therefore, apparent that amendment application filed by the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is not only meritless, but is also frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with costs so as to curb such frivolous litigation. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court. However, if the cost amount is not deposited within one month, the case shall be listed for this purpose.