Supreme Court allows amendment of pleadings and filing of documents in civil suit: N.C. Bansal vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 59

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a party be denied the right to amend their pleadings and submit relevant documents at the early stages of a civil suit? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, emphasizing the importance of allowing such amendments to ensure a fair trial. This judgment clarifies the approach that trial courts should adopt when dealing with applications for amendment of pleadings and filing of additional documents, particularly when the suit is still in its initial phase. The bench comprised Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The appellant, N.C. Bansal, filed a civil suit against Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and another party, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction regarding a property located in Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. The appellant claimed that the property should not be considered as collateral security or mortgage property under the defendants. The respondents denied the appellant’s claim and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit, but the first Appellate Court remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a decision on merits.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed the appellant’s suit, upholding the respondents’ objections regarding maintainability. The first Appellate Court reversed this decision and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a decision on merits. After the remand, the appellant filed three applications: one to file additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, another to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a third for production of original documents. The Trial Court dismissed all three applications. The High Court of Delhi upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the amendment of pleadings. It allows the court to permit either party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided that such amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy. The provision states:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”

Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relates to the production of documents on which the plaintiff relies. It states:

“Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him, and shall, at the same time, deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint.”

These provisions are designed to ensure that all relevant facts and documents are brought before the court to facilitate a just and fair decision.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in dismissing the applications for amendment of the plaint and for filing additional documents.
• The appellant contended that the suit was still at an initial stage, and the proposed amendments did not change the nature of the suit.
• The appellant also submitted that the applications were not filed belatedly, as the suit had been sub judice in appeal for several years.
• The appellant argued that the documents sought to be filed were obtained through the Right to Information Act (RTI) and were relevant to the case.
• The appellant emphasized that the courts should be liberal in allowing amendments and filing of documents at the initial stages of a suit to ensure a fair trial.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents opposed the applications filed by the appellant.
• The respondents argued that the applications were filed belatedly and that the proposed amendments would alter the nature of the suit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in dismissing the appellant’s applications for amendment of the plaint and for filing additional documents in the pending suit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the suit was still at its initial stage and the proposed amendments and additional documents were essential for a fair and complete adjudication of the matter. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in allowing amendments and filing of documents at the early stages of a suit. The court also noted that the applications were not filed belatedly, as the suit had been sub judice in appeal for several years. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the documents sought to be filed were obtained through RTI and were relevant to the case.

The Supreme Court stated, “In our considered opinion, both the applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) should have been allowed and he should have been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents.” The Court further observed, “the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.” Additionally, the Court noted, “when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing amendments to pleadings and filing of additional documents at the initial stages of a civil suit.
• Amendments should be allowed if they do not change the fundamental nature of the suit and are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.
• Applications for amendments and filing of documents should not be rejected solely on the ground of delay, especially if the suit was sub judice in appeal for a considerable period.
• Documents obtained through RTI should be considered relevant and admissible if they are pertinent to the case.
• The primary objective of the court should be to ensure a fair trial, and technicalities should not be allowed to obstruct the process of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The appellant was allowed to amend the plaint as proposed in his application.
• The respondents were granted an opportunity to amend their written statement in response to the amended plaint.
• The appellant was allowed to file additional documents as prayed for.
• The respondents were granted an opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal.
• The Trial Court was directed to reframe the issues in light of the original and amended pleadings and to decide the suit within one year.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not be used to obstruct the course of justice, especially at the initial stages of a suit. The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing amendments to pleadings and filing of additional documents, provided that the suit is at an initial stage, the amendments do not change the nature of the suit, and the applications are not filed belatedly. This decision clarifies the interpretation of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that these provisions should be interpreted in a manner that facilitates a fair and complete adjudication of the matter.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, and permitted the appellant to amend the plaint and file additional documents. This judgment underscores the importance of a liberal approach by courts in allowing amendments and filing of documents at the initial stages of a civil suit to ensure a fair trial. The Court’s decision emphasizes that procedural technicalities should not impede the pursuit of justice and that all relevant facts and documents should be brought before the court to facilitate a just decision.