CPC - Application To Amend Admissions Can Be Entertained Even After Judgment Is Reserved Under Order XII Rule 6 : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Court is permitted to entertain an application to amend an admission made in pleadings even after reserving judgment on the basis of admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon was dealing with petitions challenging the order dated 4th August 2020 wherein the Trial Court adjourned orders on...
The Delhi High Court has observed that a Court is permitted to entertain an application to amend an admission made in pleadings even after reserving judgment on the basis of admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon was dealing with petitions challenging the order dated 4th August 2020 wherein the Trial Court adjourned orders on petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 and under Order XV-A of CPC which were reserved by the Court and listed five suits for arguments on amendment application filed by the respondents.
"This Court concludes that there was nothing to preclude the learned Trial Court from hearing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which was filed by the respondents/ defendants, even after the hearing on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was concluded", the High Court observed.
The Court also observed that an application for amendment can be filed up to the stage of pronouncement of judgment and even after filing the appeal.
"It would also be useful to refer to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. This, again refers to a "stage of the proceedings" and not the "hearing", as in Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. Thus, an application for amendment may be filed by either party "at any stage of the proceedings." The Court observed.
The petitioner submitted that it was not permissible to move amendment application after hearing was concluded on the basis of admission..
It was therefore submitted that the Trial Court had erred in not disposing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC first and rather accepting the amendment application thereby further fixing hearing on it.
On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC , the provision dealing with amendment, refers to "any stage of the proceedings".
Furthermore, it was argued that mere reservation of the order on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC could not be taken to mean that the application was to be allowed and the judgment was to follow.
Relying upon relevant judgments delivered on the subject, the Court observed thus:
"The "hearing" may conclude once the "judgment" is reserved. But, the pronouncement of judgment is also a stage, just as on the filing of an appeal, that would also be a stage in the life of a suit."
The High Court therefore found no error in the decision of the Trial Court to take up the amendment application for hearing despite having already heard the parties on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
"The courts have repeatedly held that "judgments on admissions" should not be passed lightly and that even if there is an unequivocal admission by a party, judgment on admission may be declined, if the court is of the opinion that passing such a judgment would work injustice to the party making such an admission", the Court observed in the judgment.
"The petitions being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications. It is made clear that nothing contained in this order shall be a reflection on the merits of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC or under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which the learned Trial Court shall dispose of in accordance with law," the Court said.
Title: M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. v. NARSINGH SHAH alias NARSINGH SAH and other connected matters