Order XLI Rule 25 CPC | Party Can't Amend Plaint In Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Determine Additional Issues Framed By Appellate Court: Sikkim HC

The Sikkim High Court recently dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking permission to amend plaint and file a written statement to the counter-claim filed by the respondents, pending proceedings before the Civil Court under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC.

The provision provides that an Appellate Court may frame certain additional issues for examination and refer them to trial court whose decree is appealed.

The bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that both the applications were filed after the conclusion of the trial on completion of pleadings, framing of issues, examination and cross-examination of respective witnesses and judgment rendered. The said judgment is yet to be reconsidered in the respondent's statutory appeal whereas the petitioner had not filed any appeal.

Thus it observed,

"What was not done at an appropriate stage by the petitioner is sought to be done now when the learned District Judge had limited jurisdiction to determine only the additional issues framed by this court. This is not permissible."

The additional issues were framed by the Appellate Court and amending the plaint at this stage would not be necessary to determine the controversy, it held.

"The three additional issues framed by this court was directed to be considered by the learned District Judge on the pleadings of the respondents in their written statement as well as counter claim although no written statement was filed by the petitioner to the counter claim. The onus to prove the three additional issues were then put upon the respondents. Therefore, the necessary pleadings are available with the learned District Judge to determine the additional issues. The attempt to file written statement under Order VIII Rule 6 A (3) CPC would gravely affect the rights of the respondents. That would defeat the very purpose for which the additional issues had been framed by this court. Moreover, in the limited jurisdiction for which the matter was sent back to the learned District Judge it was impermissible to allow such applications which were thus rightly rejected."

Thus, the Court refused to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, stating that the same is not meant to interfere in the administration of justice by the trial court at every stage and can only be used to correct gross errors or perversity in the orders.

In the instant case, the High Court held that the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how the impugned order has caused any grave injustice to him. In view of the same, the petition was rejected.

Case Title: Shri Ashok Tshering Bhutia Versus The Divisional Forest Officer (T) and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Sik) 8 

Click Here To Read/Download Order