2008 (3) TMI 733 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Amendment to Written Statement Denied Due to Delay and Prejudice Concerns.

Chander Kanta Bansal Versus Rajinder Singh Anand

The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the HC's decision to reverse the trial court's order allowing an amendment to the written statement. The ... Application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement - seeking permission of the Court to file a written agreement executed between the parties - Long delay in filing the application after closing of evidence and arguments - HELD THAT:- It is clear that unless the party takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the commencement of trial. As mentioned earlier, in the case on hand, the application itself came to be filed only after 18 years and till the death of her first son Sunit Gupta, Chartered Accountant, had not taken any step about the so-called agreement. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness. As rightly referred to by the High Court in Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs and Others, [2005 (9) TMI 618 - SUPREME COURT], this Court cautioned that delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings. As observed, the suit filed in the year 1986 is for a right of passage between two portions of the same property dragged for a period of 21 years. In spite of long delay, if acceptable material/materials placed before the court show that the delay was beyond their control or diligence, it would be possible for the court to consider the same by compensating the other side by awarding cost. As pointed out earlier, when she gave evidence as D.W.1, there was no whisper about the written document/partition between the parties. On the other hand, she asserted that partition was oral. Now by filing the said application, she wants to retract what she pleaded in the written statement, undoubtedly it would deprive the claim of the plaintiff. We are also satisfied that she failed to substantiate inordinate delay in filing the application that too after closing of evidence and arguments. All these aspects have been considered by the High Court. We do not find any ground for interference in the order of the High Court, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the same. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the stand taken by both parties in the suit and it is for the trial Court to dispose of the same uninfluenced by any of the observation made above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Issues Involved:1. Application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.2. Allegation of forged and fabricated document.3. Delay and laches in filing the amendment application.4. High Court's reversal of the trial court's order allowing amendment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC:The appellant filed an application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to introduce a written agreement dated 10.09.1982. The trial court allowed the application, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court examined whether the application for amendment was bona fide and sustainable, considering the provisions of Order VI Rule 17, which permits amendments at any stage but imposes restrictions after the commencement of the trial unless due diligence is shown.2. Allegation of forged and fabricated document:The respondent opposed the amendment application, claiming that the agreement dated 10.09.1982 was forged and fabricated. The trial court initially accepted the appellant's explanation and allowed the amendment. However, the High Court, upon reviewing the materials, rejected the application, noting that the alleged agreement had not been mentioned earlier in the written statement or evidence, raising doubts about its authenticity.3. Delay and laches in filing the amendment application:The Supreme Court noted the significant delay in filing the amendment application. The suit was filed in 1986, and the written statement was submitted in the same year. The amendment application was filed only in 2004, after the trial had commenced and evidence and arguments were nearly complete. The appellant's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the death of her son who was handling the case, was not found satisfactory. The court emphasized that 'due diligence' requires prompt action, and the appellant's inaction for 18 years was unacceptable.4. High Court's reversal of the trial court's order allowing amendment:The High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment, considering the undue delay and the lack of credible explanation for not raising the matter earlier. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the amendment application was filed too late and would prejudice the respondent. The court highlighted that amendments should not be allowed to alter the character of the action or cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite party.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's assessment that the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence and that the amendment application was unjustifiably delayed. The court reiterated the importance of timely action and the need to avoid surprises and delays in litigation. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the judgment, within three months.