High Court · 2012

ent petition to the plaint. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had taken three adjournments for the pu rpose of filing evidence on affidavit. 10.07.2012 was also a date, fixed for filing affidavital evidence of the plainti ff and for payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-, imposed earlier. It appears that the cost was not paid on that day and the petition was filed, pr aying for adjournment to file evidence on affidavit and to file an application u nder Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as noted earlier. Prayer made in the suit is as follows: (cid:28)In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Honour woul d be pleased to pass a decree:- a) Declaring that the purported claim of the defendant of a sum of Rs. 1,85 ,00,000/- is totally unjust and bad in law and that the defendant are not entitl ed to recover the same from the plaintiff; and b) Declaring that the defendant is only entitled to receive the considerati on amount as per the agreement dated 01.04.2001 and subsequent amendment thereto and that the defendant is liable to refund the excess amount receive amounting to Rs. 8,42,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 31.03.2011 til l date of realization; and c) Declaring that the so called loan agreement dated 20.07.2007 and the sal e agreement dated 11.07.2008 is not binding and applicable upon the plaintiff; a d) Permanent injunction/ restraining the defendant, his servants, workmen, employees and agents from recovering the purported claim of the defendant of a s um of Rs. 1, 85, 00,000/-; and e) Permanent injunction /restraining the defendant, his servants, workmen, employees and agents from adopting any coercive measures including initiation of legal proceeding for recovery of the purported claim of the defendant of a sum Permanent injunction/ restraining the defendant, his servants, workmen, of Rs. 1, 85, 00, 000/-; and f) employees and agents from terminating the agreement dated 01.04.2001; and g) h) Cost of the suit; and Pass such further other order(s)/ Decree as your Honour may deem fit and proper. In the petition that was filed on 10.07.2012, the petitioner stated as follows: 1) That this date is fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in the form of affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of C.P.C., which was made re ady for submission today, but it comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff yesterd ay that the Director (Marketing & Sales), Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has accepted the resignation letter, dated 11th April, 2010 tendered by the defendant which i s communicated vide MSIL/DD1/GOLAGHAT/PROGRESSIVE/2012-13 dated 20th April, 2012 , the copy of which is annexed herewith for perusal of this hon’ble Court. It ma y be noted that the plaintiff was in Delhi for some unavoidable personal reason and the defendant had tendered his resignation in a clandestine and illegal mann er causing irreparable loss, hardship and trouble since the plaintiff, his wife and the lessor, Sri Krishna Dol, stood as Guarantors while obtaining loan of Rs. 1, 78, 00, 000.00 only by the defendant and mortgaged their landed properties i n favour of Assam Gramin Bikash Bank, Golaghat Branch enabling the defendant to obtain such huge loan to run the dealership at Rangajan. That in addition to the above, the Regional Manager, (East-3), Maruti Su 2) zuki India Ltd. has published one ’Public Notice’ in the Assam Tribune dated 6th July, 2012 whereby it has been made explicit that the outlet of Progressive Mot ors at Rangajan, Golaghat, Assam, has ceased to operate as an authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., with effect from 11th April, 2010, the copy of whic h is annexed herewith for perusal of the hon’ble Court. 3) That the plaintiff has came to know about such resignation letter of the defendant and its acceptance by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and also about the pub lic notice published in the said Newspaper only yesterday while arriving from Ne w Delhi. That it appears that the new facts and circumstances have been forthcomi 4) ng and have come to light subsequently after the institution of the present suit which requires to be incorporated in the body of the plaint in an appropriate a nd desired manner so that appropriate reliefs may be granted by the Hon’ble Cour t to the plaintiff and to avoid multiplication of suit/proceeding and also in th e interest of Justice. Keeping such view in mind, the plaintiff begs to pray thi s Hon’ble Court to allow another date for filing application under Order VI, Rul e 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint on the next date specifying the proposed amendment to be made and to enable the plaintiff to insert the new and subsequen t facts and circumstances in the body of plaint by way of filing amendment plain t. (cid:29) The defendant was a proprietor of Progressive Motors and he was awarded the deal ership of sales and service of motor vehicles by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, for Di mapur as well as Golaghat. There was, apparently, an agreement of sale dated 11. 07.2008 between the parties. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the dev elopments relating to resignation by the defendant from the dealership for Golag hat and the public notice published in the Assam Tribune on 06.07.2012, issued b y the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., indicating that Progressive Motors at Golaghat h ad ceased to be an authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. with effect fro m 11.04.2010, it had become necessary to amend the plaint as otherwise the inter est of the plaintiff will be jeopardized in the suit. He submits that the afores aid developments came to the notice of the plaintiff/petitioner only after publi cation of the news item on 06.07.2012, three days before the date fixed for fili ng evidence on affidavit. In these circumstances, the prayer was made to adjourn the case and to fix another date so as to enable the plaintiff to file necessar y application to amend the plaint. In the aforesaid backdrop, the evidence of af fidavit, though ready was not filed. He further submits that cost was inadverten tly not paid and the same will be paid on the next date fixed. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party, on the oth er hand, submits that the plaintiff is praying for time on this or that pretext and delaying the disposal of the suit. He further submits that the amendment pet ition, proposed to be filed by the petitioner on the basis of the materials disc losed in the petition filed for adjournment on 10.07.2012, is not even remotely connected with the facts and issues in the suit. He has also cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joy Singh and ors. vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. reported in (2010) 9 SSC 385 to impress upon this Court the conto urs of the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, i ncluding the affidavit-in-position filed on behalf of the opposite party. A peru sal of the impugned order shows that learned Trial Court rejected the petition o n the ground that the plaintiff had got sufficient time to file evidence on affi davit and that he is intentionally praying for further time by way of a plea of filing of an amendment petition. It is not in dispute that there was a paper publication on 06.07.2012 by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. relating to Progressive Motors. However, to what exten t, if any, the same will have a bearing on the outcome of the suit, this Court o ught not to comment at this stage. The proximity of time from 06.07.2012 to 10.07.2012 does not persuade th is Court to take a view that the petitioner is deliberately and intentionally tr ying to delay the matter intentionally, as the petitioner cannot possibly have a ny role in the publication of the said news item by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 06.07.2012. It is also contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was in da rk about the letter, dated 20.04.2012 accepting the resignation letter of the de fendant. This aspect of the matter was totally overlooked by the learned Trial C ourt while rejecting the petition and closing the evidence of the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the con sidered opinion that refusal of the prayer for adjournment for further evidence of the plaintiff thereby closing the evidence is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, as it has been noted that developments connected with Progressiv e Motors at Golaghat had unfolded on 06.07.2012, three days before the date fixe d for evidence of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. The petitioner, if he so desires, may file an application on or before 19.10.2012 for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner shall also pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/- on that date. Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party submi ts that objection to the said petition will be filed by the opposite party on or before 09.11.2012. Mr. Choudhury has also submitted that a time frame be fixed by this Court for disposal of the said petition, if any, filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. In view of the aforesaid, it is provided that the opposite party will fi le the objection to the petition for amendment on or before 09.11.2012. The lear ned Trial Court will dispose of the said petition on or before 19.11.2012 and th ereafter, proceed with the suit in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is disposed of.