CPC | Amendments To Pleadings Must Be Sought Within A Reasonable Time, Not To Stall Trial Itself: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the amendments to pleadings must be sought by the party concerned within a reasonable time and should not sought to be introduced so as to stall the trial itself.

Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 13 February 2019 in terms of which the Estate Officer had rejected the applications made by the petitioners for amendment and for the issuance of interrogatories.

The Estate Officer was ceased of proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 19711. The proceedings started after the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on 11 January 2001. 

The order was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition which was withdrawn in 2018 on the statement of the petitioner that the writ petition was not being pursued subject to rights being reserved to urge all grounds in challenge to the proceedings as drawn by the Estate Officer before the authority itself.

Thereafter, application under Order VI Rule 17 and Order XI of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 was preferred and the Estate Officer while rejecting applications observed that the application for amendment was not maintainable since it was filed after the matter was posted for evidence.

Regarding the application for issuance of interrogatories, the Estate Officer observed that the same was not in the format prescribed under the CPC and that in any case, the application lacked bonafide and appeared to have been made only to delay the disposal of the main case.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the proceedings were instituted prior to the introduction of the amendments, the amended Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the various restrictions which stand introduced by virtue thereof to seek amendment in proceedings would not apply.

"At the very outset, it must be noted that while the reasoning assigned by the Estate Officer for rejecting the application for interrogatories on the ground that it was not in the format prescribed by the CPC may not be sustainable, the Court also bears in mind the observations entered by the Estate Officer who was constrained to observe that it lacked bonafide and had been filed with inordinate delay," the Court said.

It added "The Court takes into consideration the spirit of the Act which mandates and envisages proceedings for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises to be concluded with expedition. It is for the aforesaid reason that the Legislature has chosen not to burden the procedure to be followed by the Estate Officer to be guided by the procedure which may otherwise apply to trials and stand strictly governed by the provisions of the CPC."

The Court said that while it is true that principles underlying the provisions of the CPC may be adopted and may also guide the exercise of power by the Estate Officer, however, they have no strict application.

The Court noted that the fact of the amendment having been moved only after the matter had been posted for evidence justified the exercise of power by the Estate Officer.

"The general principles which would govern the grant of an amendment to pleadings and as expounded by the learned Judge in Time Warner cannot possibly be doubted on first principles. However, at the same time, it must also be borne in mind that amendments to pleadings must be sought within a reasonable time and at least not sought to be introduced so as to stall the trial itself. This was a test which was applicable even under the unamended CPC," the Court said.

The Court was of the view that grounds in challenge to the order passed by the Estate Officer did not warrant interference at the interim stage.

"The writ petition consequently fails and shall stand dismissed. The Court however, observes that notwithstanding the dismissal of the instant writ petition, it shall be open to respective parties to raise all permissible contentions on merits before the Estate Officer," the Court ordered.

Case Title: DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187

Click Here To Read Order