Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 v. Gurdcv Singh

t hat defendant execut ed cash rcccipton 17 1995 and duly signcdt hc said rcceiptin t hc presenceof wit nesses nam ely Shlam and Sunil Kum ar and adinit t cd and t he receiptof Rs1380001 t hroughflvc num bersof chcques issued by plaint iffbcingpropriet orof SC Foot wears and dulyencashedbyt hc defcndant I t is also allcgedt hat in flrst I ineofparano 12 ofpage4 When t he t im e periodof be adm it t edand afler conclusion of paraNo 12 of t he piaintt hc followinglinc lnay kindlybe allowedt o bc addedbyanlcndinent And 15nallyon 188 1997 whlch necessit at edt he inst it ut ion of t he suit I t is furt her averred t hat t hc proposcdainendm enl is cssent ial and necessaryfor t he oft hc rcal issucs and it would not change t he nat ure of t he suit and praycdt hat . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh t hc proposcdam cndm enl m aybe JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 34 4dS Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 3 allowed Defcndant Sled a det ailed replyt o t hc in which he has t aken t he obj cct ionst hat applicat ionfor am endlnentof t he plaint iff1S not t his st age am endm ent s proposedby t he plaint iffwill changet he nat ure and charact cr of t hc suit and not necessary C2 t he proper t he I it igat ionbct wccn t he paniesand 0 C I 0 Z 2 C45 00 7 Z r applicat ion1S m aia fide in nat ure I t is denied byt hc dcfendant t hat carlier counsel for t he plaint iffcould not plcadregardingt hc cash recciptin t he plaintas allegedThe plaint iffwas assist cd by a fairlysound and senior counsel and t his plcaraised is wrong and m isconceivcd hc plaint lffhas already exam ined PW and hc has alrcadybecn cross cxam ined at lcngt h on t he pointof allcgcdreceiptt o which posit ivccvidence defyingt he case oft he plaint iffhascolne Thc plaint iffnow want s t o flll uo t he lacuna in his plcadingsby m ovm g t he prcscnt The applicat ionliled by t he plaint iffis t ot allym ala flde in nat ure which rcquiresdism issal wit h cost s The learned t rial Court aft er hcaringt hc learncd counsel for t he part icsdisinisscd t he said applicat ionholdingt hat allowingt he im pugnedapplicat ionwould am ounl t o dc novo t rial which cannot be allowed under t he law Feelingdissat isfied wit h t he aforcsaid order t he pet it ionerhas preferredt he prcscntrevision pet it ion I havc hcard t he lcarncd counscl for t hc part icsand huve gone t horought he records oft he case . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 1 0 0 I C5 Z r I c5 Z 35 Civil Revision No636 of 2005 4 Lcarned counsclfor t hc pet it ioncrhas subm it t cd t hat suit oft he plaint iffis for recovery of Rs 380001 Five chcqueswere issuedbyt he plaint iffwhich wcrc got cncashcd by t he defcndant lnd ullim at elya consolidat edrecciptof Rsl38000 issucd by t he defendant on 1771995 Thc plaint iff1Sa rust lC villagerand duc t o inadvert cncc t he rccciptdat ed 1771995 could not bc plcadedDuringt riallhe plaint iffhas provedt he said receiptbcfore t he Trial Court Thc learned t rial Coun has dism issedt he applicat ionundcr ordcr 6 Rulc 17 CPC on t he groundt hat t hcrc is a delayin 61ingt he applicat ionundcr ordcr 6 Rulc 17 CPC and t hat t he proposedam endm ent would changct he nat urc of lhe case I t subm it t edt hat nat ure of t hc casc rem ain lhc sam c rcgarding rccoverv J of t hc am ount of Rs1380001 in rcspcctof 8vc chcqucs The consolidat ed rcccipt dat cd 17 995 issucd The will not 1ead any evidencc aft cr lhe am endm ent The am endm entis j ust in nalurc and is vcry cssent ial for t he j ustdccision of t hc cas The nat urc of t he casc will not bc changcd To supportt his cont ent ion lcarncd counscl for t hc pct it ioncrhas relicd upon aut horit ies Surinder Kum ar Sharm a vs Makhan Singh 2010 11 PLR 231 and Sm t I nderiit Kaur VS Sher Singhand ot hers 2010I RCR 4Civil l page 542 So t he praycr has becn nladc for sct t ingaside lhe orderdism issingt hc applicat ionundcr Order 6 Ruler 17 CPC and for allowingt he proposcdam cndm ent Learnedcounsel for t hc has support edt he ordcr of t he t rial Court . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh is subm ilt cd t hat allcgcdchequcsrelalc t o t hc period JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 36 Civil Revision N05636 of 2005 1 r j 5 2191994 lo 1551995 Thc allegedreceiptlS dat cd 171995 The suit was filed on 2091997 and as such t hc chcqucdat ed 2 191994 has prim a facie becom et im c barred I 3yrcI yinguponrccciptdat ed 1771995 t he plaint iffwant s t o plead t he chcques The present applicat ionunder ordcr 6 Rule 17 CPC has becn Olcd on 2972005 ie aft er a long pcriodof about eighlvcars of 0 flling t hc SUil Even i t hc applicat lonis allowcd lhe pcriodoflim it at ion shall com c I n t he way oft he plaint iffas t he am cndm cntshall relat ct o t hedat eof applicat ion I t is furt hcr conlended t hat by CXCTCl SC of duc diligencet he rcceiptcan bc plcadedas t he sam e was wcll wit hin t hc knowlcdgcof t hc plaint iffat t he t im e of filingt he suit I t is furt her subinit t ed t hat plcadingcannot bc allowcd t o m ake par wit h t hc evidcnce on t hc filc Vcst cd lcgalright shavc accrued in favour of t he rcspondcntSo t hc sam c cannot bc allowed t o t akc away by t hc proposedam cndm ent Lcarned counscl t hc has rclied upon t he followingaut horilies 1 0 C I C5 Z C I C m 7 Z t l Bahadur Sinh and anot hcr vs Avt ar Sinh 1 2007131PeLR 628 Prcm Chand VSe Chct an Dass 2006111P1R 604 3I Sukhdev SinghVS Bal Krishan 2005111PlR 498 41Bant a Sinh Ganea Sinh and ot hers VSe Sm t Harbhaian Kaur and ot hers AlR 1974 Puniab Sz Harvana Pagc 247 L8MBSirkarand sons Calcut t a 630 2 9 VS Powell Si Co AI R 1956 61 Khali and ot hers VS Sadhaba Bewa and ot hcrs . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 37 r Civil Rcvision N03636 of 2005 r 1 6 1 C 0 0 I C5 I Z r I a5 W2 Z Qm AI R 1967 Orissa 58 9 7 Mahant Prem Das Chela Mahant Bhola Dass vs Jot i PershadAI R 1971 Delhi282i 81Bhubancswar Pat el vs Janak Pat el and ot hcrs AI R 1976 Orissa 216 699Sait Taraj eeKhim chand and ot hcrs vs Yclam art i Sat vamand ot hers AlR 1971 Suprem cCourt 1865 7 101 Baldev Sinuh and ot hers vs Manohar Sinh and anot her 200616 Suprcm cCourt Cascs 498 9 1 have given m y t hought fulconsidcrat ion t o t he rival subm issionsm adebylcarncd counscl for t hc parlicsandhave gone t hrough t hcrecordsoft he casc Thc lcarncd t rial Court has dism isscd t hc applicat ionfor am endlnentm ainlyon t hc followingt wo grounds 6it hatdc novo t rial would bc slart cd if lhc am cndm ent is allowcd ii9 t hat t hc rcceipthas bcen afler t hc periodof lim ilat ion I 3ot ht hcsc groundst akcn byt hc t rial Court whilc dism issing t he applicat ionarc not availablc Counscl for t hc plaint ifct it ioner m adc a st at cm ent at bar t hal he will nol I cad any evidcncc aft er t he am endm entas t hc receiptin quest ionhas alreadybccn provcdon t he flle The law of lim ilat ion would nol at lracl as lhc basis of t hc suit is Ove chequcsin quest ionand not . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh t hc rcccipl ln qucst ionThc I lonble Apcx JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1m 0 C C5 Z r 08 C a7 Z 38 v Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 1 7 Court in rcccnt Sukhwant Singh and ot hers case supral has held t hat cven if t he prayer for am endm cntof plaintis belat cdone t he cannot be dism issed The qucsliont hat nccds t o bc dccidcd is t o see whct herby allowingt he am cndm cnt t hc rcal cont roversybct weent he m ay be resolved I t has bccn furt hcr laid down in t hc said ruling t hatif aft er t hc am cndm entsuit rcm ainsas lhal of originalt hen am cndm ent shouldbe allowcd On t he fact s of t hc prescntcasc lhc am cndm ent will only cxplain t he exist ingfact s t hat fivc chequcshavc bccn cncashcd by defendant swhich werc issuedbyt hc plaint ifOand arc lhc basis of t he m ain suit The basis of t hc suit and causc of act ion shall plaint iffhas rcm ain t he sam e The not prayedfor cxt endingt hc pcriodof lim it at ion on t hc basis of t he rcceiptin qucst ionNeedlcss t o say t hat t he said rcccj pt scan onlybe looked int o ift hc plaint iNisable t o provc lhc sam c This Courl againin Sm t I nderj itKaurs case supral cam ct o t heconclusion lhat if t hc Court colnes t o t hc conclusion t hat am cndm cnt was essent ialfor t he j ustdecision of t hc case and for subscrvingt hc cnds ofj ust icet hcn no m at t cr whet hcr lhc applicat ionwas m ovcdat a belat ed st agecould not dissuadc lhc Court from allowinglhc alncndm cnt The m ain t hrust of learncd counscl for t hc is t hal by allowingt he am cndm cnt lim it alion for Olingt he suil would be dccm cd t o havc becn cxt cndcd Hwcvcrt hc counscl fort hc is unfoundcd Thc claim oft hc plaint iffisbascd upon t hc vc . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 39 v Civil Rcvision N03636 of 2005 m 1 8 1 r 0 C I C I Z I a5 r 7 chequesand not on t he receipt Thc recciptnow soughtt o be pleaded1S st at edt o be a consolidat ed recciptin rcspcctof t hosc chequcst hat is not t he basis of lhc suit So lhe law of lim it at ion shall not bar t he Court t o allow applicat ionunder Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Moreover t hc defendant shall be at libert yt o raise t he pleaof Lim it at ion which shall bc decided by t he t rial Court Thc rccciptdat cd 17771995 has alreadybcen exhibilcd by t he plaint iffduringlhe coursc of his cvidcnce Alt houghrecciptdat ed 177995 is support ingevidence in respectof chequesin quest ionand t hat need not t o be plcadedbyt he plaint iffbutt he defcndant m ay at lat er st age an obj ect iont hat lhc rcceipli n qucslionhas not bcen spccifically pleadedand m ay arguc t hat it should bc ignorcdon t hat account So in t hese circum st anccs t hc applicat ionfor am endm cnt should be allowed Needless t o say t hat defendant shall bc givenan opport unit yt o rcbut t he said receiptbyproducingevidence ifany Thc casc is st aled t o be flxed for rebut t al evidence From lhe bare rcadingof Ordcr 6 Rulc 17 CPC il lS cryst alclear t hat Court m ay at any st agcof t he procccdingsallow cit hcr part yt o aller or am end his plcadingwhich is necessaryfor t he purposeof t hc rcal quest ionin cont rovcrsybct wccn lhc part ics Duringt he course of argum cnt s learncd counscl t he has subm it t cdt hat som c of t hc chequcsare cncashcd by t he plaint iffhim self So t hat facl can bc rcfut cdby t hc plaint iffby relying upont he said rccciptt hat t hc am ount of t he chcquchas bccn ut ilized byt he dcfcndant Thc ot her argum entadvanccd by lhc I carncd counscl for lhe is t hat byexerciseofduc diligencct he rccciptcould be pleaded JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh 40 eCivil Rcvision N03636 of 2005 m V4 1l 9 1 r 0 3 I C5 I Z I C6 r10 7 Z C at an earlyst agcand on t hat account for am endm cntshould be dism issed I n aut horifyBahadur Sinh and anot hers case t pral rclied upon by t hat t he applicat ionundcr Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dism issedon t hc groundright sof purchasR 4 duringt he ofsuit shall bc hit byprinciplcsof I is pcndcncc I n aut horit y Prem Chands case supral t hc following est ablishcdbyvariousj udicialdeclsions in respcctofam endm ent wcre discussed 66 a Thc parlicsshouldnot bc allowed lo subst ilut e onc of act ion or t hc nat urc of t he claim for anot her as claim ed originallyor should also not be allowcd t o changet he subj ect m at t cr t hc cont rovcrsylt l t hc sut l b Thc part icsshould I lOt bc allowcd t o int roducc by am cndm cnt an inconsist enl or cont raryplcat o negat et he fact s originallyadinit t edt hrougha part ylnay bc allowed inconsist ent plcaon adm it t edfact s byway ofam endm cnt c Thc am cndm cntshould not cause pj udice t o t he ot her side which cannot be byway of cost s c0 Thc parlicsshould nol bc aI owed am endm cnl of a claim or rclicfwhich is barrcd by I aw of liinit at ion whcn alncndm ent 1S soughtt o bc inade as lt deeat s a I cgalrightwhich has accrued in favour of a part y I lowevcr t his m aybc allowed onlyin very circum st anccswhcn t he fact s of . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh t he JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 eCivil Revision N03636 of 2005 10 0 case so warrant ln t he presentcase t he plaint iffi1Snot changingt he causeof act ion or nat ure of t he claim by way of am endm enl No i nconsist ent or cont rarypleahas been soughtt o be m adc The am cndm entsoughtwas not prej udicedt o t he defendantas t he casc is slill pendingThc ot her principles of law laid down in lhe said rulingis t hat part y should not be allowed am endm entofclaim ofor relief which is t im c barrcd bylaw of lim it at ion As discussed abovc rccciptsought t obc plcadcdis not t he cause of act lon lO t he prescntcasc So t hc I aw of lim it at ion is not prim afacie at t ract edin product ionofsaid receipt I n aut horilySukhdev Singhs case supral t his Court has held t hat repeat edam cndm entapplicat ionshould nol bc allowcd in lhc Elcct ion pet it ionI t has been furt hcr laid down lhat allowingplcadingt o am endso as t o bringinfirm it ywit h cvidcncc is im proper ln t hc prcscntcasc no ot her am cndm cntapplicat ionwas said lo 0 0 C5 I Z I 08 r 7 Z Om bc prefcrredby t hc plaint iffAlt hought hc recciptin quest ionhas already bccn producedbut lt cannot be said t hat am endm cnt has bccn soughtt o bring infirm lt ywit h t hal rcceipt So t hc above said aut horit y1S Aut horit yBant a Sinh Ganga Singh and ot hers supral as 111t hat case am cndm cnt was soughtt hat suit is bad for part ialprecm pt ionat appcllat c st agc Aft er passinga decree havc accrued in favour oft hc plaint iffsint hat casc I n t hc presentcasc t hc m at t er . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh is st ill sut j udiceand has t o bc dccidcd JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 1L Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 l l 0 0 C3 I C I Z I a5 r m Z 0 Aut horilyMBSirkar and sons I supral is also rclat ed lo t im e barred am cndm cnt and as such is not at t ract cd t o t hc fact s of t he prescntcas Aut horilyKhali and ot hers case supral is t hat case argum ent swcrc alrcadyhcard and t hcn applicat ionfor am cndm enthas been Olcd Aut horit yMahant Prem Das Chela Mahant Bhola Dasss case 1supralis also as 111lhat case am endm entwas sought t o convert evlct lOI l suit int o suit for posscssionResult ing t he defendanlof t hc plcaof lim it at ion Thal facl 1S al so not apparcntin t he presentcas ln aut horit yBhubancswar Pat els supral t he am endm entwas soughtfor changingt hc foundat ion of suit and int roducing dist inct causc ofact ion No such fact s arc apparentin t hc prcscntcase I n aut horit ySait Taraicc Khim chand and ot hers supral it has bcen held t hat m ere m arkingof a docum ent docs not dispensewit h ils proof Therc is no sucllisput cin t he prcscntcasc I n aut horit yBaldev Singhs case supral am cndm cnt of wrlt t en st at cm cnt was soughtand a ncw groundof defcnce for or alt eringt he dcfcnce Howcver in t hat aut horit yanot hcr rulingEst ralla Rubber case vs Dass Est at e OI Lt c20011 8 SCC 97 was discusscd in which it has been held t hat providingm orc dclails in rcspcct of alrcady broughtfact am ount s onlylo an claboralion of t hc facls alrcadynarrat ed I n t he prescntalso t hc recciptis onlyfor claboralion of t he fact s alrcady . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 Civil RevisionN03636 of 2005 12 narrat ed So in VlCW of t hc above discussion t hc im pugnedordcr docs not sust ain t he t cst of lcgalscruliny t he sam c st ands set aside and applicat ionfor am endm cnt st ands allowcd on paym entof Rs20001 as cost s Howevcr 1S m adc clcar t hat plainliffshall not bc allowcd t o lead any evidcncc aft er t he am cndm cnt of plaint Nccdlcss t o t hat dcfendantshall be ent illed lo rcbut t hc rccciptin qucst ionby leading cvidcnce A copy of t his j udgm entbc sent lo t hc t rial Court for st rict 1 1 JUDGK com pliance 2010 MarchlI SV 1 99 3e 1 0 0 I C0 I Z Q I 08 m W2 Z 1 . Rashm i 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document