Iqbal Qureshi vs Shri Jain Shwetambar Murti Pujak Sansthan Committee

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed u/s 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 9.1.2014, whereby the application of the petitioner/defendant preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P/4) is rejected by the court below.

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent and mesne profit. In the said suit, the written statement was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, at the stage when the matter was fixed for defence evidence, the petitioner filed amendment application (Annexure P/4). The plaintiff filed his reply. The court below rejected the said application.

Shri P.C. Chandil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that amendment application was based on a subsequent event which took place on 4.1.2014 and, therefore, the amendment is not hit by proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC. He submits that the court below has erred in entering into the merits of the amendment application, which is clearly impermissible in view of the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Others, . In addition, it is submitted that the amendment is necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter and it will not cause any prejudice to the other side.

Per Contra, Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that in para 21 of the written statement, the petitioner has already averred that the front portion of the shop was removed by the Municipal Corporation in their road widening drive and, therefore, there is no question of any further action by Khemchand Parikh, as alleged in the amendment application. Apart from this, the order of court below was supported on the ground that Khemchand Parikh was no more the President of plaintiff organization. He was substituted by Shri Nirmal Kumar Kothari and in the plaint, such incorporation/change was made w.e.f. 26.8.2013. He submits that this amendment is of no use because no allegation is made either against the plaintiff or the President Shri Nirmal Kumar Kothari. Apart from this, he submits that the amendment is vague and did not disclose any date when the alleged incident had taken place nor it is supported by any affidavit. By placing reliance on Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, it is urged that every pleading must be supported by verification/affidavit. In absence thereto, the amendment application was rightly disallowed by the court below.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The court below has rejected the amendment application on the ground that the allegations in the amendment application are made against Khemchand Parikh. Khemchand Parikh is no more office bearer of plaintiff-committee. There is no averment in the amendment application alleging that Khemchand Parikh''s act is at the instance of plaintiff. Although Shri Chandil urged that the court below has in fact entered into the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the proposition cannot be doubted that while considering the amendment application the merits and demerits of the amendment application cannot be gone into, yet the court below needs to consider the amendment application with reference to relevance of the said application. In other words, the court below needs to examine whether amendment prayed for is necessary for lawful adjudication of the controversy. If it is foreign to the controversy or is irrelevant, the court below can reject it. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has examined the amendment application for the purpose of examining the relevancy of said amendment application for deciding whether it is necessary for adjudication of the controversy. This exercise of court below cannot be said to be without authority of law. Apart from this, the defendant in para 21 of the written statement has stated that the front portion of the shop was removed by the officers/employees of Municipal Corporation in their road widening drive. In view of these pleadings also, it appears that the amendment was not necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter. Thus, the court below has assigned justifiable and plausible reasons.

In view of this finding, other points raised by the parties are not required to be gone into.

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Even an erroneous order is not required to be corrected in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The basic purpose of exercising the said jurisdiction is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . There is no ingredient on which interference can be made in this petition.

In view of aforesaid, no interference is made out. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No costs.