32 Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 1 IN TI lE HIGII COUR OF PUNJAI3 81 lIARYANA AT CHAND1GARl i Civil Revision N05636 of 2005 Decided on Il010 1 Ram Saran Pctitioner 0 0 I VersUS C5 I Gurdcv Singh Respondcnt Z I CORAN HONBLE MR JUSTICE KC PURI C45 QO Present Mr Adish GuptaAdvocate for thepetitioncr 7 Ivlr ASChadha Advocate for the Z lCCPURI This is a petitionunder Articlc 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18102005 passcdby Civil JudgeOunior Division9Faridabad vide which application undcr Ordcr 6 Rule 17 of the Code ofCivil Procedurc 1 shora ClCI standsdisnlisscd It is aliegedby the plaintifflappellant that hc has flled the presentsuit for rccovery on the basisof thc chequcs issucd bythc plaintiff and cncashedby the defendant Rs138000 throughflVC 1 chcqucsissucdbctwecn 21 91994 to 1531995 as mcntioncd in para no4 1 5P 1 . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 33 Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 2 4 of thc plaintAflcr encashmentof thc chequcsdcfcndant cxccuted casb receiptsOll stamp papers Exhibit P4 in the prescnce of the witnesseson 1771995 The plaintiffis a very simplefellow and docs not undcrstandthe law and totally on thc advisc of thc counscl I1is counscl could not pleadin thc plaintrcgarding execullOll of cash rcceiptdated 1731995 r Ex P4 which is on the court Ole wltncsscs of rcceipthave also 0 appeared on his behal It is very necessary and essentialrcgarding C3 I ofrecciptinparano ofthc plaintaAcrcndofparaNo the C following Iinemay be insertedl that defendant executedcash rcccipton 17 1995and duly Z signcdthc said rcceiptin thc presenceof witnesses namely 1 Shlam and Sunil Kumar and adinittcdand the receiptof Rs1380001 throughflvc numbersof chcques 08 00 issued by plaintiffbcingproprietor of SC Footwears and 7 dulyencashedbythc defcndant Z It is also allcgedthat in flrst Iineofparano 12 ofpage4 m When the time periodof be admittedand afler conclusion of paraNo 12 of the piaintthc followinglinc lnay kindlybe allowedto bc addedbyanlcndinent And 15nally on 188 1997whlch necessitatedthe institution of the suit It is further averred that thc proposcdainendmenl is cssential and necessaryfor the ofthc rcal issucs and it would not change the nature of the suit and praycdthat thc proposcdamcndmenl maybe . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 34 Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 3 4dS allowed Defcndant Sled a detailed replyto thc in which he has taken the objcctions that application for amendlnentof the plaintiff1S not at this stage amendmentsproposedby the plaintiffwill changethe nature and charactcrof thc suit and not necessary C2 for the proper of the Iitigationbctwccn the paniesand 0 application 1S maia fide in nature It is denied bythc dcfendantthat carlier C I counsel for the plaintiffcould not plcadregarding thc cash recciptin the 0 plaintas allegedThe plaintiffwas assistcd by a fairlysound and senior counsel and this plcaraised is wrong and misconceivcd hc plaintlffhas Z already 2 examined PW and hc hasalrcadybecn cross cxamined at lcngth on the pointof allcgcdreceiptto which positivccvidence defyingthe case ofthe plaintiffhas colne Thc plaintiffnow wants to flll uo the lacunain his C45 00 plcadingsby movmg the prcscnt The application liled by the 7 plaintiffis totallymala flde in nature which rcquiresdismissalwith costs Z The learned trial Court after hcaringthc learncd counsel for r the particsdisinisscd the said applicationholdingthat allowingthe impugnedapplicationwould amounl to dc novo trial which cannot be allowed under the law Feelingdissatisfied with the aforcsaid order thepetitioner has preferred the prcscntrevision petition I havc hcard the lcarncd counscl for thc particsand huve gone thorough the recordsofthe case . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 35 Civil Revision No636 of 2005 4 4 Lcarned counsclfor thc petitioncr hassubmittcdthat suit ofthe plaintiffis for recovery of Rs 380001 Five chcqueswere issuedbythe plaintiffwhich wcrc got cncashcd by the defcndant lnd ullimatelya consolidatedrecciptof Rsl38000 was issucd by the defendant on 1771995 Thc plaintiff1Sa rustlC villagerand duc to inadvertcnccthe 1 rcccipt dated1771995 could not bc plcadedDuringtriallhe plaintiffhas 0 proved the said receiptbcfore the Trial Court Thc learned trial Coun has 0 I dismissedthe application undcr ordcr 6 Rulc 17 CPC on the groundthat C5 thcrc is a delayin 61ingthe application undcr ordcr 6 Rulc 17 CPC and that the proposedamendment would changcthe naturc of lhe case It is Z submittedthat nature of thc casc shall remain lhc samc ie rcgarding r rccoverv of thc amount of Rs1380001 in rcspcctof 8vc chcqucs The J I consolidated rcccipt datcd 17 995 has bccn issucd The c5 rlo will not 1ead any evidencc aftcr lhe amendment The vm amendmentis just in nalurc and is vcry cssentialfor Z the justdccision of thc cas The naturc of the casc will not bc changcd To supportthis contentionlcarncd counscl for thc pctitioncrhas relicd upon authoritiesSurinder Kumar Sharma vs Makhan Singh 2010 11PLR 231 and SmtInderiit Kaur VS Sher Singhand others 2010I RCR 4Civil l page 542 So the praycr has becn nladc for scttingaside lhe orderdismissing thc application undcr Order 6 Ruler 17CPC and for allowingtheproposcd amcndment Learnedcounsel for thc has supported the ordcr of the trial Court lt is submiltcd that allcgcdchequcsrelalc to thc period . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 36 Civil Revision N05636 of 2005 5 1 r j 2191994 lo 1551995 Thc allegedreceiptlS datcd 171995 The suit was filed on 2091997 and as such thc chcqucdated 2191994 has prima facie becometimc barred I3yrcIyinguponrccciptdated 1771995 the plaintiffwants to plead of the chcques The present application under ordcr 6 Rule 17 CPC hasbecn Olcd on 2972005 ie after 1 a longpcriodof about eighlvcars of fllingthc SUil Even i thc 0 0 applicatlon is allowcd lhe pcriodoflimitationshall comc In the way ofthe C I plaintiffas the amcndmcntshall relatcto thedateof application C5 It is furthcr conlended that by CXCTCl SC of duc diligencethe rcceiptcan bc plcaded as the same was wcll within thc knowlcdgc of thc Z plaintiffat the time of filingthe suit C It is further subinittedthatplcadingcannot bc allowcd to make I at par with thc evidcnce on thc filc Vcstcd lcgalrightshavc accrued in C m favour of the rcspondcnt So thc samc cannot bc allowed to takc away by 7 thc proposed amcndment Z Lcarned counscl for thc has rclied upon the tl following authorilies 1 Bahadur Sinh and anothcr vs Avtar Sinh 2007131PeLR 628 Prcm Chand VSe Chctan Dass 2006111P1R 604 3I Sukhdev SinghVS Bal Krishan 2005111PlR 498 41Banta Sinh Ganea Sinh and others VSe SmtHarbhaian Kaur and others AlR 1974 Puniab Sz Harvana Pagc 247 L8MBSirkarand sons VS Powell Si Co AIR 1956 Calcutta 630 29 61 Khali and others VS Sadhaba Bewa and othcrs . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 37 1 r Civil Rcvision N03636 of 2005 6 r AIR 1967Orissa 58 9 7 Mahant Prem Das Chela Mahant Bhola Dass vs Joti PershadAIR 1971Delhi282i 81Bhubancswar Patel vs Janak Patel and othcrs AIR 1976Orissa 216 1 C 699Sait TarajeeKhimchand and othcrs vs Yclamarti 0 Satvamand others AlR 1971SupremcCourt 1865 7 0 I 101Baldev Sinuh and others vs Manohar Sinh and C5 I another 200616 SuprcmcCourt Cascs 498 9 1 have given my thoughtfulconsidcration to the rival Z submissionsmadebylcarncd counscl for thc parlicsandhavegone through r thcrecordsofthe casc I Thc lcarncd trial Court has dismisscd thc applicationfor a5 rn amendlnentmainlyon thc followingtwo grounds W2 6ithatdc novo trial would bc slartcd if lhc amcndment is Z allowcd and Qm ii9 that thc rcceipthas bcen afler thc periodof limilation I3oththcscgrounds takcn bythc trial Court whilc dismissing the applicationarc not availablc Counscl for thc plaintifctitioner has madc a statcment at bar thal he will nol Icad any evidcncc after the amendmentas thc receiptin question has alreadybccn provcdon the flle The law of limilation would nol atlracl as lhc basis of thc suit is Ove chequcs in questionand not thc rcccipl ln qucstionThc Ilonble Apcx . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 38 1 v Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 7 Court in rcccnt Sukhwant Singhand others case supral has held that cven if the prayer for amendmcntof plaintis belatcdone the cannot be dismissed The qucslionthat nccds to bc dccidcd is to see whctherbyallowingthe amcndmcnt thc rcal controversybctweenthe may be resolved It has bccn furthcr laid down in thc said ruling 1m thatif after thc amcndmentsuit rcmainsas lhal of originalthen amcndment 0 shouldbeallowcd C On the facts of thc prescntcasc lhc amcndment will only C5 cxplain the existingfacts that fivc chequcshavc bccn cncashcd by defendantswhich werc issuedbythc plaintifO and arc lhc basis of the main Z suit The basisof thc suit and causc of action shall rcmain the same The r plaintiff has not prayedfor cxtending thcpcriodof limitation on thc basisof the rcceiptin qucstionNeedlcss to say that the said rcccjpts can onlybe 08 C looked into ifthc plaintiNis able to provc lhc samc a7 This Courl againin SmtInderjitKaurs case supral camcto Z theconclusion lhat if thc Court colnes to thc conclusion that amcndmcnt was essentialfor the justdecision of thc case andfor subscrvingthc cnds ofjusticethcn no mattcr whethcr lhc application was movcdat a belated stagecould not dissuadclhc Court from allowinglhc alncndmcnt Themain thrust of learncdcounscl for thc is thalby allowing the amcndmcnt limitalion for Olingthe suil would be dccmcd to havcbecn cxtcndcd Hwcvcrthc said of counscl forthc is unfoundcd Thc claim ofthc plaintiffisbascd upon thc vc . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 39 1 v Civil Rcvision N03636 of 2005 8 m cheques and not on the receipt Thc recciptnow soughtto be pleaded 1S statedto be a consolidated recciptin rcspcctof thoscchequcsthatis not the basis of lhc suit So lhe law of limitation shall not bar the Court to allow application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Moreover thc defendant shall be at libertyto raise the pleaof Limitation which shall bc decided by 1 r the trial Court Thc rccciptdatcd 17771995 has alreadybcen exhibilcd by 0 the plaintiffduringlhe coursc of his cvidcnce Althoughrecciptdated C I 177995 is supporting evidence in respectof cheques in questionand that C neednot to be plcadedbytheplaintiffbutthe defcndantmay at later stage I raise an objectionthat lhc rcceipli n qucslionhas not bcen spccifically Z pleadedand may arguc that it should bc ignorcdon that account So in these circumstanccs thc application for amendmcnt should be allowed I Needless to say that defendant shall bc givenan opportunityto rcbut the a5 r said receiptbyproducing evidence ifany Thc casc is staled to be flxed for 7 rebuttalevidence From lhe bare rcadingof Ordcr 6 Rulc 17 CPC il lS crystalclear that Court may at any stagcof the procccdings allow cithcr ll partyto aller or amendhis plcading which is necessaryfor the purposeof thc rcal questionin controvcrsybctwccn lhc partics Duringthe course of argumcnts learncd counscl for the has submittcdthat somc of thc chequcs are cncashcd by the plaintiffhimself So that facl can bc rcfutcdby thc plaintiffby relying uponthe said rccciptthat thc amount of the chcquchas bccn utilized bythe dcfcndant Thc other argumentadvanccd by lhc Icarncd counscl for lhe is thatbyexerciseofduc diligencctherccciptcould bepleaded . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 1 l eCivil Rcvision N03636 of 2005 9 m V4 at an earlystagcand on that account for amendmcntshould be dismissed In authorify Bahadur Sinh and anothers case tpral rclied upon by that the application undcr Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissedon thc groundrightsof purchasR 1 4 r during the ofsuit shall bc hit byprinciplcs of Iis pcndcncc 0 In authority Prem Chands case supral thc following 3 I establishcdbyvariousjudicialdeclsions in respcctofamendment C5 wcre discussed I 66 a Thc parlicsshouldnot bc allowed lo substilute onc cause Z of action or thc naturc of the claim for another as claimed originally or should also not be allowcd to changethe subject I mattcr or thccontrovcrsyltl thc sutl C6 r10 b Thc particsshould IlOt bc allowcd to introducc by 7 amcndmcntan inconsistenl or contraryplcato negatethe facts Z originallyadinittedthrough a partylnay bc allowed inconsistent C plcaon admittedfactsbyway ofamendmcnt c Thc amcndmcntshould not cause pjudice to the other side which cannot be byway of costs c0 Thc parlicsshould nol bc aIowed amendmcnlof a claim or rclicfwhich is barrcd by Iaw of liinitation whcn alncndment 1S soughtto bc inade as lt deeats a Icgalrightwhich has accrued in favour of a party Ilowevcr this maybc allowed onlyin very circumstanccswhcn the facts of the . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 eCivil Revision N03636 of 2005 10 0 case so warrant ln the presentcase the plaintiffi1Snot changing the causeof action or nature of the claim by way of amendmenl No i nconsistent or contrarypleahas been soughtto be madc The amcndmentsoughtwas not prejudiced to the defendantas the casc is slill pendingThc other principles of law laid down in lhe said rulingis that party should not be allowed 0 amendmentofclaim ofor relief which is timc barrcdbylaw of limitation 0 As discussed abovc rccciptsoughttobc plcadcdis not the cause of C5 I actlon lO the prescntcasc So thc Iaw of limitation is not primafacie attractedin production ofsaid receipt Z In authorily Sukhdev Singhs case supral this Court hasheld thatrepeated amcndmentapplication should nol bc allowcd in lhc Elcction I petitionIt has beenfurthcr laid down lhat allowingplcadingto amendso as 08 r to bringinfirmitywith cvidcncc is improper 7 ln thc prcscntcasc no other amcndmcntapplication was said lo Z bc prefcrredby thc plaintiffAlthoughthc recciptin questionhas already Om bccn produced but lt cannot be said that amendmcnt has bccn soughtto bring infirmltywith thal rcceipt So thc above said authority1S AuthorityBanta Sinh Ganga Singh and others case supral is as 111that case amcndmcntwas soughtthat suit is bad for partialprecmption at appcllatc stagc After passing a decree havc accrued in favour ofthc plaintiffsinthat casc In thc present casc thc matter is still sutjudiceand has to bc dccidcd . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 42 1L Civil Revision N03636 of 2005 l l AuthorilyMBSirkar and sons casc Isupral is also rclatedlo time barred amcndmcnt and as such is not attractcd to thc facts of the prescntcas AuthorilyKhali and others case supral is as in that case argumentswcrc alrcadyhcard and thcn applicationfor 0 amcndmenthasbeen Olcd 0 AuthorityMahant Prem Das Chela Mahant Bhola Dasss C3 I case 1supralis also as 111lhat case amendmentwas sought C I to convert evlctlOIl suitinto suit for posscssionResulting the defendanlof thc plcaof limitation Thal facl 1S also not apparcntin the Z presentcas ln authorityBhubancswar Patels casc supral the I a5 amendmentwas soughtfor changing thc foundationof suit and introducing r distinct causc ofaction No such facts arc apparentin thc prcscntcase m In authoritySait Taraicc Khimchand and others case Z 0 supral it has bcen held that mere markingof a document docs not dispense with ils proof Therc is no sucllisputcin the prcscntcasc In authorityBaldev Singhs case supral amcndmcnt of wrltten statcmcnt was soughtand a ncw groundof defcnce for or alteringthe dcfcnce Howcver in that authority anothcr rulingEstralla Rubber case vs Dass Estate OI Ltc20011 8 SCC 97 was discusscdin which it has been held that providing morc dclails in rcspcctof alrcady broughtfact amounts onlylo an claboralion of thc facls alrcadynarrated In the prescntalso thc recciptis onlyfor claboralion of the facts alrcady . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 Civil RevisionN03636 of 2005 12 narrated So in VlCW of thc above discussion thc impugned ordcr docs not sustain the tcst of lcgalscruliny the samc stands set aside and applicationfor amendmcnt stands allowcd on paymentof Rs20001 as costs 1 Howevcr it 1S madc clcar that plainliffshall not bc allowcd to 0 lead any evidcncc after the amcndmcnt of plaint Nccdlcss to sav that 0 I dcfendantshall be entilled lo rcbut thc rccciptin qucstionby leading C0 cvidcnce I A copy of this judgmentbc sent lo thc trial Court for strict Z compliance Q 1 1 I JUDGK MarchlI 2010 08 SV m 1 W2 Z 99 et 3e 1 . Rashmi 2012.08.09 12: 59 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document