AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the additional appellants in A.S.No. 45456/1991 on the file of the third additional district court at Thiruvananthapuram, is Ext.P9 order passed by the learned District Judge in Ext.P7 application, which was an application under Order VI Rule 17(4) for amendment of the written statement. The amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement raises a new plea disputing the identity of the suit property and thereby challenging the claim and title of the possession of the plaintiff over the same.
According to the petitioners, the appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 630/1984 of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and against the decree of the District Court dismissing that appeal, a second appeal S.A.No. 942/2000 has preferred before this Court. Contention raised in the second appeal was regarding identity of the B schedule property. The grievance raised in the second appeal was that though a number of documents touching on the above aspects had been produced before the trial court and the appellate court, they were wrongly rejected. In the second appeal also, a number of documents had been produced and to substantiate this contention an application for issuance of a Commission was also filed. This court allowed the second appeal in part and remanded the matter with a direction to have the matter considered by the court of appeal afresh.
According to the petitioners they filed I.A.No. 3528/02 after remand for the appointment of a Commission. But that commission application was dismissed in view of the earlier order passed by the Munsiff in I.A.No. 6200/1988 which was affirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No. 2794/2002. Against the order dismissing the commission application, W.P.(C)No. 18298/2004 was preferred before this Court. But this Court dismissed the same on the ground that necessity for issuance of a Commission can arise only when there is a dispute regarding the identity of the property, where as there is no such dispute in the written statement. According to the petitioners, liberty has been given to them for raising it as a ground in appropriate proceedings and hence they have filed the instant application for amendment.
Ext.P8 objections were filed to Ext.P7- I.A.No. 2034/2006 by the respondents. It was contended that the petition is a frivolous and vexatious petition filed solely with the intention of protracting the matter and thereby to harass the defendants who have secured a decree for redemption way back in 1979. The appellant has filed I.A.No. 6200/1988 for evaluating the improvements and that I.A. was dismissed on 04.04.1989. At that time, the appellant had no dispute regarding the identity of the property. The appellants are persons claiming the leasehold right under the second defendant in the suit who was the mortgagee. A decree for redemption was passed in O.S.No. 187/ 1965. In that suit, the second defendant therein had claimed value of improvements and value of improvements had been deposited. The present appellants who claimed right under the mortgagee is not entitled to raise any contention regarding the identity of the property. The original written statement had been filed on 12/11/1984 and after a lapse of 22 years they cannot now file the present petition raising the very same ground.
The learned District Judge has considered the rival contentions elaborately and noticed that there is a trend of liberality in decisions towards application seeking amendment of pleadings even if they are belatedly filed. Referring to the judgments cited at the Bar, the court held that allowing the application will not be justified. The court noticed that the delay was inordinate and the amendment if allowed will enable the petitioners to get away from the admissions which they/their predecessor in interest had already made regarding the identity of the property. The amendment if allowed will cause serious prejudice to respondents and on those reasons the application was dismissed and Ext.P9 order was passed.
I have heard Sri.S.James Vincent, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.R.S. Kalkura, counsel for the respondents. Sri.S.James Vincent, apart from reading over to me Ext.P9 would refer to Ext.P3, P11, P4 ( judgment in the second appeal) , Ext.P3 second appeal memorandum etc. during the course of his submissions. He would refer to paragraph 7 of Ext.P4 judgment and submit that it is not correct to say that the issue regarding identity of the property is concluded. Sri.James Vincent also placed before me a copy of the written statement which had been filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners to show that the observation of the District Judge that the question of identity of the property had been conceded by the petitioners is wrong. Sri.S.James Vincent would cite a number of authorities in support of his arguments that the court below has fell in error while exercising its powers to allow amendment of the pleadings. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ishwardas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 551, Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Choudhary , Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , judgment of this Court in Bhaskaran Nair and Anr. v. P. Chandramathiyamma ILR 2006(1)Ker126 were only some of the decisions cited. Sri.S.James Vincent would also rely on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K. Modi and Others, , P. Chandrasekharan and Others Vs. S. Kanakarajan and Others, and in Baldev Singh and Others Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another Etc., wherein a Division Bench consisting of Honourable Justice Dr.AR.Lakshmanan and Honourable Justice Tarun Chatterjee has held that the court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused.
Per contra, Sri. R.S. Kalkura, also did not lag behind in citing decisions. The judgment of this Court in Kalpakamani and Ors. v. Shajathan and Anr. 2005(3)ILR 860) was only one among the decisions cited by him. He would remind me on the strength of the above decision regarding the contours of this Court''s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The constitutional jurisdiction whether it be under Article 226 or 227 can be invoked only for correcting the jurisdictional error. This court does not sit in appeal over Ext.P9, he would submit.
Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and in the light of the judicial precedents cited before me,I am of the view that even though the decisions justify a most liberal approach towards the application for amendment of pleadings, it cannot be said on the facts and circumstances which attended on this case that the learned District Judge had fallen into serious errors jurisdictional or otherwise while dismissing Ext.P7 application. After all this Court does not sit in appeal over Ext.P9. The contours of this Court''s jurisdiction under Article 227 are well defined. The yardsticks for invoking supervisory jurisdiction are well neigh settled. Merely because of the order of the subordinate court is erroneous, this Court will not invoke supervisory jurisdiction. Invoking of supervisory jurisdiction will be in exceptional situations. The objective underlying the supervisory powers of the High Courts under Article 227 is only to ensure that the Subordinate courts keep within their jurisdiction. The limits of the supervisory jurisdiction will enable this Court to correct or set aside the orders of its subordinate court which violate the fundamental rules of law and judicial proceeds, which results in failure of justice or in patent injustice or is of such a nature as to branded as perverse in the sense that such such orders will be ordinarily be passed by persons having reasonable knowledge of law and training in judicial process. Having scanned Ext.P9 of the learned District Judge of the above parameters, I am of the view that there is no warrant for invocation of supervisory jurisdiction for correcting Ext.P9. The amendment if allowed would cause serious legal prejudice to the respondents. In as much as the amendment will enable the petitioners to get away from the effect of the admissions made through the original written statement. At any rate I feel that it will be totally unjust to allow the petitioners to raise a question regarding the identity of the property at this belated stage when more than two decades have passed by after filing of the original written statement. Challenge against Ext.P9 fails and the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.