CPC- Plaint Has To Be Amended Once Application For Amendment Allowed Under Order VI Rule 18: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that once an application for amendment is allowed in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint has to be amended.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also reiterated that in case the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter.

The Court was dealing with a revision petition, the wherein the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit, had challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020 by which the respondents (plaintiffs') application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs were accordingly directed to file the amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.

One of the grounds in the defendants' application seeking rejection of the plaint was on account of deficiency in payment of the Court fees by the Plaintiffs.

On 3rd December, 2018, the Trial Court had noticed that the Court fee was not paid by the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 148 CPC seeking extension of time in depositing the said fees. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Thereafter, on the same very date, the Plaintiffs were permitted to move an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, alongwith an application under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants were again considered by the Trial Court, and decided in the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020. 

The suit was then dismissed for default and non- prosecution vide subsequent order dated 22nd March, 2021.

Perusing the impugned order, the Court was of the view that initially when the Plaintiffs were directed to deposit the Court fees vide order dated 14th September, 2018, they had moved an application under Sections 148 CPC seeking extension of time to deposit the Court fees, which was later dismissed as withdrawn.

The Court also noted that the application for amendment of the suit was allowed and the Plaintiffs were required to file the amended plaint. However, the said amended plaint was not filed on several dates and that the Plaintiff also did not regularly appear before the Trial Court.

"It is the settled position in law that once an application for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1," the Court said.

Accordingly the Court said that the Trial Court had dismissed the suit both for want of amended plaint as also for non-prosecution.

"Clearly, in view of this fact, in this revision petition no further orders would be called for," the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court the plea was disposed of as infructuous.

"It is however made clear that if the Plaintiffs seek restoration of the suit before the Trial Court, various non-compliances of the orders passed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall be taken into consideration by the Trial Court as also the objections of the Defendants shall be considered prior to allowing any restoration of the suit. If any orders are passed in the said suit by the Trial Court, the remedies of the Defendants in respect of the impugned order are also be left open, if such a need arises," the Court said.

Title: THARVINDER SINGH & ORS. v. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 93

Click Here To Read Order