AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.K. Nigam as well as Sri Sudeep Kumar representing the contesting respondents.
The present petition is posted today for disposal of amendment application seeking relief to amend the writ petition under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.
After insertion of explanation under Section 141 CPC by Act No.104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977, Order 6, Rule 17 is not extendable in writ petitions. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by necessary implication the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable. Suffice it to say in this regard that the writ petitions are always founded on affidavits sworn in accordance with Rules of this Court. It is known to all of us that the affidavit is a piece of evidence and it cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of the petitioner. However, this has been a long practice of this Court, that in such a situation if subsequent events or new facts come in light of the petitioner then in such a situation they can bring such facts by way of filing a supplementary affidavit on record. In case, supplementary affidavit is filed bringing subsequent events on record, the contesting respondents are also given time to file supplementary counter affidavit. This is a fair practice coming to this Court from time immemorial with which we do not want to make a departure. The amendment application for amending the writ petition is hereby rejected.
There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. It is true that under Civil Procedure Code principles of natural justice based on public policy are encoded. To our mind such provisions are extendable in writ petition by necessary implication inspite of explanation added under Section 141 of Civil Procedure Code such as Section 11 and Order 23 of CPC but for the reasons given hereinabove writ petition cannot be allowed to amended which are founded on affidavit sworn on personal knowledge, on record, on information and on legal advice. We are of the view that as statement given on oath by a witness cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of a witness, similarly writ petition founded on affidavit cannot be allowed to be amended under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. A witness can be recalled and can be reexamined and on the same pattern supplementary affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits can be permitted to be filed in writ petitions without causing any harm to any party to bring on record subsequent events in a writ petition provided such cause shown by petitioner for filing supplementary affidavit is found to the satisfaction of the Court to be bonafide.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for and is granted two weeks time to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record the subsequent events. Two weeks time thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the respondents to file supplementary counter affidavit.
List this petition immediately thereafter.
If the petitioner is so advised, he can move impleadment application for impleading the authority, who has passed the order during pendency of the instant writ petition.
After dictation of the order, the Members of the Bar, present in Court, make request to make the order reportable. The request is allowed and the order is made reportable.
(Ordered accordingly)