TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Amendment of plaint and impleading defendants require separate applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC</h1> The HC set aside the trial court's order dated April 4, 2013, which had improperly dealt with a combined application seeking both amendment of plaint ... Amendment of plaint and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading proposed defendant Nos. 6 to 15 - HELD THAT:- The High Court should not be stressed-out to deal with such a combined application compressed into one impugned order needlessly to unravel causing sheer wastage of its precious time in trying to separate what was so casually and mindlessly mixed-up in a cocktail by virtue of bad advice given by some trial lawyer to his client clubbing two disparate legal elements in a portmanteau application claiming amendment in pleadings and at the same time, in the same papers, seeking to introduce third parties in the pending litigation. Every minute of the High Court's time squandered involves colossal expenditure which is incapable of calculation and therefore recompense. The reward of justice is none other than justice and time consumed in trying to meet it is alone its justification as an end to the means - There is a presumption in law that a lawyer knows the law but there is no absolute presumption that a judge should know law. A judge is only called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him. There are no cogent ground to support the impugned order dated April 4, 2013 or to sustain it and to the contrary I think it is eminently fit to be set aside to avoid a failure of justice. It is accordingly so ordered. The matter is remitted back to the trial Judge for a re-consideration. The respondent/plaintiff is left free to file two separate applications, one under Order 6 Rule 17 and one under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC within a fortnight from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The defendants would file replies thereto within the next fortnight. In the circumstances, and in order not to cause any prejudice to either party the fresh applications to be filed by the plaintiff will relate back by fiction to the date of the original misconceived and ill-thought combined application presented in the year 2010 so that neither party is affected by any legal disability arising during the intervening period if it were not so ordered, but if they are filed within the time frame fixed by this Court, as was agreed upon. Issues:Improper presentation of a single application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, confusion caused by clubbing reliefs and causes of action, need for separate orders for different applications, curbing the practice of clubbing applications, importance of deciding on parties to be added in an ongoing suit first, complexities arising from allowing proposed amendments, need for trial courts to disallow clubbed applications, lack of power in trial courts to dismiss misconceived applications, need for summary jurisdiction to dismiss vexatious applications, necessity for Parliament to address issues hindering the progress of suits.Analysis:The judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina addresses the issue of improper presentation of a single application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The judge emphasizes the confusion caused by clubbing reliefs and causes of action in a single application, leading to difficulties for the trial court. The judgment highlights the importance of separate orders for different applications to ensure clarity and ease in decision-making for the trial court. It stresses the need to curb the practice of clubbing applications, which has been identified as a growing issue causing unwanted litigation.Furthermore, the judgment delves into the complexities that arise from allowing proposed amendments in ongoing suits. It emphasizes the necessity of deciding on parties to be added in a suit first before considering any amendments. The judge points out the various legal steps and complications that newly added parties may introduce, underscoring the importance of following a systematic approach in legal proceedings. The judgment also calls for trial courts to disallow clubbed applications and invoke their powers under Section 35B CPC to impose costs if necessary.Moreover, the judgment discusses the limitations faced by trial courts in dismissing misconceived, vexatious, frivolous, and mala fide applications that obstruct the progress of a suit. It suggests the need for empowering subordinate judges with summary jurisdiction to dismiss such applications promptly without compromising the quality of justice. The judgment highlights the role of Parliament in addressing these issues to ensure the smooth progression of legal cases without unnecessary delays or hindrances.In conclusion, the judgment sets aside the impugned order and remits the matter back to the trial Judge for re-consideration. The plaintiff is directed to file two separate applications within a specified timeframe, and the defendants are to respond accordingly. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compensating aggrieved litigants for the time lost due to prolonged legal proceedings and stresses the need for trial courts to follow the rule that costs must follow the event. Additionally, the judgment calls for circulating a copy of the order among the learned District & Sessions Judges to prevent any recurrence of similar issues in the future.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
