2021 (8) TMI 1318 - HC - Indian Laws

Trial Court Dismisses Petitions, Orders Consideration of Applications Under CPC Rules

M/s BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. Versus NARSINGH SHAH alias NARSINGH SAH and SHIKHA SHAH M/s BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

The court dismissed the petitions, finding no error in the Trial Court's decision to hear the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC despite having ... Scope of 'judgement' and 'order' - Default in payment of monthly rent for more than two months consecutively - eviction - recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits - Order XII Rule 6 of CPC - whether the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC could have been filed after the learned Trial Court had heard arguments on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, it would be useful to understand what is a “judgment” and what is an “order”? HELD THAT:- An “order” is something that does not result in a decree or, therefore, a final conclusion of a matter, though a “judgment” may include an “order”. The term “judgment” indicates a judicial decision given on the merits of the disputes brought before the Court. It determines the rights of the parties finally. In contrast, an “order” may not be so but could be an interlocutory one, if it does not determine or decide the rights of the parties once and for all. Thus, there are, broadly speaking, two kinds of “orders”, one, that is in the nature of a final order and the other not determining the main issue with any finality. If such orders have been passed to help with the progress of the case, they may dispose of a specific question finally, but without finally disposing of the dispute. There is yet another category of “orders”, which, if decided one way, would result in the determination of the rights of the parties finally, but, if determined in any other way, would result in the continuation of the proceedings. Such orders have been described as “intermediate” or “quasi final orders”. Order XII relates to “admissions” and Rule 6 provides that the court may “at any stage” of the suit, either on the application of any party or on its own motion, without waiting for a determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit. Where a judgment is pronounced, a decree is to be drawn up. In other words, Order XII Rule 6 of CPC does not per se provide for a final determination of the rights between the parties, though it may result in such a final determination. It is the considered view of this Court that since the purpose of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party, at any stage, to alter or amend their pleadings in such manner as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions/controversies between the parties, subject to satisfying the court of due diligence, and in view of the fact that the power of the court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary, and could result in the final disposal of the matter, permanently debarring the defendant from exercising his right to defend such a suit, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be considered on merits before the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is exercised by the Trial Courts. This Court finds no error in the decision of the learned Trial Court to take up the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for hearing and disposal despite having already heard the parties on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC - Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the Trial Court's adjournment of the matter for arguments on the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.2. Determination of whether the order dated 28th July, 2020 was a 'judgment' or an 'interlocutory/intermediate' order.3. Interplay between Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.4. Discretion of the court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.5. Applicability of judgments cited by both parties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the Trial Court's Adjournment:The petitioner challenged the Trial Court's orders dated 4th August 2020, which adjourned the matter for arguments on the respondents' application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, instead of passing orders on the petitioner's applications under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and Order XV-A of CPC. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court had erred in not first disposing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, despite having heard extensive arguments and reserved the matter for orders.2. Determination of 'Judgment' or 'Interlocutory/Intermediate' Order:The court examined the definitions of 'judgment' and 'order' under Sections 2(9) and 2(14) of CPC, respectively. It clarified that an 'order' does not result in a decree or final conclusion of a matter, while a 'judgment' indicates a judicial decision given on the merits, determining the rights of the parties finally. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania to elaborate on the nature of final and interlocutory orders.3. Interplay between Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC:The court noted that Order XII Rule 6 of CPC allows the court to pass a judgment on admissions 'at any stage' of the suit, while Order VI Rule 17 of CPC permits amendments 'at any stage of the proceedings.' The court emphasized that the 'stage' of a suit and 'hearing' do not connote the same thing. It concluded that the Trial Court was not precluded from hearing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC even after reserving orders on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.4. Discretion of the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC:The court highlighted that the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and should not be exercised lightly. It reiterated that even if there is an unequivocal admission, judgment on admission may be declined if it would work injustice to the party making such an admission. The court cited S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj to support this view.5. Applicability of Judgments Cited by Both Parties:The petitioner relied on Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Satya Bhushan Kaura v. Vijaya Myne to argue that no application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC could be filed after reserving orders on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. However, the court found that these judgments did not preclude the filing of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC at any stage. The respondents cited Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyoti Sahay and Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami to argue that amendments could be sought at any stage, which the court found persuasive.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions, finding no error in the Trial Court's decision to hear the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC despite having reserved orders on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The court clarified that the Trial Court should consider both applications on merits and dispose of them in accordance with the law.