Ramkumar vs Pyarilal Narayan Patel

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge, Class-II to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh passed in Civil Suit No.01-A/2015 (Pyarilal Narayan Patel Vs. Narayan Prasad and others), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.3 under Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC has been dismissed.

Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No.3 therein) would submit that respondent No.1 has filed civil suit for declaration of title, partition and possession of the suit land alleging that suit property is ancestral property in which petitioner/defendant No.3 has pleaded that the suit property has been acquired through will by defendant No.3. In this regard, the petitioner had filed an application for necessary amendment in the written statement on 04.08.2022 which has been allowed on the same day by the trial Court and was directed to be carried out the necessary amendment within 3 days. However, due to some bonafide reasons the proposed amendment could not carried out within the time stipulated. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing the petitioner/defendant No.3 had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 18 of Civil Procedure Code for extension of time to incorporate proposed amendment, but the same has been rejected in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel has also placed reliance in the matter of Rambabu Vs. Shrikrishan reported in 2011 (1) MPHT 281 and has also drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 13 which reads thus:-

“13. it is well settled in law that the Legislature has enacted the procedural laws for providing justice to the parties and not to stall the process of law to provide justice.”

Therefore, impugned order is improper and not sustainable in the eye of law and same is liable to be set aside, and the application under Order 6 Rule 18 deserves to be allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused petition along with the annexed documents.

At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the Order 6, Rule 18 of the CPC which reads thus:-

“18. Failure to amend after Order.—If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.”

It is explicit from the aforesaid provision that even after expiry of 14 days to incorporate the amendment, if no limitation has been prescribed, the Court has ample power to extend the time as in the instant case the amendment application has also been allowed. Further, as per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings specifically when the Court finds that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In the instant case, when the application has been moved, on the next date of hearing of the case the party cannot be deprived to advance their cause and proper justice on technical grounds. Time and again, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. It is also well settled principle that the Courts are meant to do substantial justice between the parties and the technical rules or procedure should not given precedence over doing substantial justice. Justice according to law does not merely mean technical justice but means that law has to be administered to advance justice.

Considering the aforesaid principles and the facts of the case, the mistake committed in not incorporating the amendment does not appear to be serious in nature and the same does not affect the rights of the parties. Therefore, the approach adopted by the trial Court in dismissing the application is not proper and thus the same deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the application under Order 6 Rule 18 is allowed and petitioner is permitted to incorporate necessary amendment in accordance with law. The petitioner is also directed to pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the other side before the incorporating such amendment.

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed.