RAJ KUMAR BHATIA versus SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 531, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 531 
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA 
v. 
SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA 
(Civil Appeal No.19400 of2017) 
DECEMBER 15, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r.7 - Amendment of C 
written statement - Permissibility of - Held: In the original written 
statement, the appellant had set up the plea that the property in 
dispute was in the nature of joint family property and that even· 
after the alleged deed of relinquishment, parties were living together 
as members of a joint Hindu family - Thus, the case sought to be set 
up by the appellant in the proposed amendment by introducing an 
D 
averment on the existence of coparcenary!Hindu undivided proper~v, 
was an elaboration of what was stated in the written statement -
The amendment would cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff - High 
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art.227 entered upon the me,rits 
of the case which is impermissible - Whether an amendment should E 
be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed 
to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial - Trial Court in the 
exercise of its jurisdiction had allowed the amendment u/Or. VI, 
r.17 - There was no reason for High Coart to interfere u!Art.227 -
Judgment of the High Court is set aside - Order passed by the Trial 
Court allowing the amendment of the written statement is accordingly 
affirmed - Constitution of India - Art. 227. 
Constitution of India - Art.227
- Power under, of High Court 
F 
- Scope of - Held: The supervisory jurisdiction of High Court 
u/Art.227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or G 
tribunal has proceeded within t.he parameters of its jurisdiction -
In the exercise of its jurisdiction u/A11.227, the High Court does not 
act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to 
review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or 
tribunal has passed an order. 
531 
H
532 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12017] 12 S.C.R. 
A rclim1uishment deed was executed, in respect of the suit 
property, by the appellant and the respondent in favour of their 
mother 'S''. 'S' permitted the appellant and the res11ondent to 
reside along with her in the property. However, she filed a suit 
iilter a/ia for recovery of possession against the appellant wherein 
the respondent joined as a co-plaintiff. An application was filed 
by the appellant for amendment of the written statement, which 
was allowed. Writ petition filed by the respondent challenging 
the said order was allowed. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the original written statement, the appellant 
had set up the pica that the property in dispute was in the nature 
of joint family property and that even after the alleged deed of 
relinquishment, parties were living together as members of a 
joint hindu family. [Para 10] [537~0] 
1.2 This being the position, the case which was sought to 
be set up in the proposed amendment was an elaboration of what 
was stated in the written statement. The amendment would cause 
no prejudice t-0 the Plaintiff. The High Court has in the exercise 
of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered 
upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the 
appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an 
amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the 
case which
is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at 
the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed 
the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. The 
supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under 
Article 227 is confined only to sec whether an inferior court or 
tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. 
In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High 
Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not 
open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the 
inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court 
had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the 
amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Ruic 17 of 
the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere 
under Article 227. The amendment would cause no prejudice to 
the Plaintiff. [Para 11] [538-E-G; 539-A-BJ
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA v. SUBHASH CHANDER B.HATIA 
533 
Scul/111a Lodh v. National Insurance Company (2003) 3 
A 
SCC 524 : [2003] 1 SCR 567 - relied on. 
Ccnnmissirmer of Wealt/1-tax, Kanpur I'. Chander Se11 
(1986) 3 SCC 567 : [1986] 3 SCR 254 : Yudhishter 11. 
As/wk Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204: [1987) 1 SCR 516 
- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1986] 3 SCR 254 
[1987] 1 SCR 516 
[2003] 1 SCR 567 
referred to 
referred to 
relied on 
Para7 
Para 7 
Para 11 
Cl VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 19400 
of2017. 
B 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2016 by the High Court 
D 
of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. (M) No. 643/2016. 
Ms. Geeta Luthrn, Sr. Adv, Anshul Duggal, Sanjay Rathi, 
Ms. Chant! D., Parmanand Gaur, Advs for the Appellant. 
Gagan Gupta, Adv for the Respondent.· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arises 
from a j.udgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 5 October 2016 by 
which an order of the Trial Court allowing an application filed by the 
appellant for_ amendment of the written statement was set aside. 
2. On 11 October 2002, Sharda Rani Bhatia instituted a suit for 
the recovery of possession, arrears of damages and mesne profits against 
the appellant.The property in dispute is situated on the first floor at 1/6 
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the original plaintiff is that 
Desh Raj Bhatia acquired the leasehold rights on 13 February 1962. On 
his death, his children are stated to
have relinquished their rights and 
interest in favour of their mother, Lajwanti Bhatia. She executed a will 
bequeathing the property lo her son Ratan Lal Bhatia who is stated to 
have become the exclusive owner of the property on her death. The 
original plaintiff, Sharda Rani Bhatia is the widow ofRatanLal Bhatia. 
E 
F 
G 
H
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant is the son of Ratan Lal Bhatia. Ratan Lal Bhatia died 
intestate. On his death, a registered deed of relinquishment was executed 
in favour of Sharda Rani Bhatia by the appellant and the respondent, the 
sons ofRatan Lal Bhatia and by Shakti Bhatia in favour of their mother. 
The original plaintiff is stated to have permitted the appellant and the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
respondent to reside along with her in the property. The suit was filed by 
Sharda RaniBhatia for recovery of possession from the appellant and 
for consequential relief. The original plaintiff is stated to have executed 
a deed of gift in favour of the respondent in 2003 after which he was 
impleaded as co-plaintiff. The original plaintiff died in 2005 and the suit 
is being pursued by the respondent. 
3. The appellant filed his written statement in the suit on 
22 February 2003. According to the appellant, the respondent had 
exercised undue influence in obtaining the deed of relinquishment.· 
According to him, parties had lived together jointly evenafte( the alleged . 
relinquishment.The appellant claims that an oral understanding was_ 
arrived at by which he was to occupy the first and second floorstogether 
with the terrace whereas the respondent was to occupy the ground floor 
exclusively and their mother was to live on the ground floor or, with any. 
of her sons, as she desired. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the 
family arrangement was
acted upon and the appellant is in occupation of 
the first and second floors together with the terrace while the respondent . 
is in possession of the ground floor. 
4. Issues were framed on 14August 2003. The respondent moved 
an application under0rder6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for 
amendment of the plaint on 7 February 2013, which was allowed on 21 
September 2013. The appellant filed a written statement to the amended 
plaint. The appellant filed an application for amendment of the written 
statement in March 2016, which was opposed by the respondent. The 
Trial Court allowed the application by an order dated 11April2016. 
5. The respondent filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of 
CPC seeking review ofth.e orderdated 11April2016. On 3 June 2016, 
G . the respondent filed.a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
H 
The petition was allowed b)! the' impugned order dated 5 October 2016. 
6; By the proposed amendment, the appellant inter alia sought to 
introduce the following averments in the written statement:
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA v. SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA 
535 
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
"22. That as a matter of fact the property in question is the 
A 
ancestral, joint Hindu Family Property as initially in view of the 
pleadings as well the same was purchased by Desh Raj Bhatia, 
grandfather of the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant. After the 
death of Desh Raj Bhatia, who died intestate, the suit property 
was inherited by all the legal heirs namely Smt. Rajwanti Bhatia 
B 
(widow), Sunita Rani Bhatia (Daughter), Walaityi Ram Bhatia 
(Son), Om Prakash Bhatia(Son), Tilak Raj Bhatia (Son), Ratan 
Lal Bhatia (son), Smt Sita Virmani (daughter), Smt Shakuntala 
Bhatia (daughter), Jagdish Lal Bhatia (son). All the said legal heirs 
have relinquished their rights in favour of their widow mother 
Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia. Thereafter, Smt Lajwati Bhatia before her 
C 
expiry, have executed a Will in favour ofRatan Lal Bhatia, who is 
the father of the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant and after death 
of Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia, the suit property was inherited by Ratan 
Lal Bhatia .. 
24. That it is an admitted position that on the death of Ratan Lal 
D 
Bhatia, he was survived by his widow Shara Rani Bhatia, plaintiff 
No. 2, Subhash Chander Bhatia, defendant Raj Kumar Bhatia 
and one daughter namely Smt. Shakti Rani Bhatia and one daughter 
namely Smt Sakshi Rani Bhatia and the plaintiff No. 2, defendant 
and their sister was also having their two children. It is undisputed 
position that Ratan
Lal Bhatia died intestate and the assets as 
E 
well as the properties left behind by him stands inherited equally 
in the name of his legal heir and thus the properties left behind by 
Ratan Lal Bhatia become the coparcenary property for the rights 
of the grand children ofRatan Lal Bhatia. It is submitted that the 
grand children ofRatan Lal Bhatia have derived their coparcenary 
rights in the properties left behind by Ratan Lal Bhatia. Meaning 
thereby in case of plaintiff No. 2, although he derived 1/4'h share 
in the suit property but legally his own son and daughter being 
coparcener then his share shall be terms as 1/12theach and likewise 
the share of defendant which he derived as I/4th on the death of 
his father shall also be deemed as 1/12'h each with his two sons 
and the share of Sharda Rani Bhatia which she derived as 1/41h is 
also to be legally deemed as I/12th each alongwith her sons and 
daughter. 
. 
F 
G 
H
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12017112 S.C.R. 
A 
7. The High Court has held that the amendment sought inthe 
B 
written statement was not bona fideand was not necessary for 
determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The 
suit was instituted in 2001 and the written statement was filed in 2003. 
The High Court held that based on facts which were known to the appellant 
·in 2003, a belated attempt was made thirteen years later in 2016 to 
amend the written statement to introduce an averment on the existence 
of coparcenary I hindu undivided property. On merits, the High Court 
held that it is a settled principle that after the enactment of the Hindu 
Succession Act 1956, property which devolves on an individual from a 
paternal ancestor does not become HUF property but the inheritance is 
C 
in the nature of self-a<;quired property unless an HUF exists at the time 
of the devolution. This view was based on the judgments of this Court in 
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur v Chander Sen 1 and 
Yudhishter v Ashok Kumar2• In the view of the High Court, the 
averments sought to be introduced by the appellant do not lead to a 
0 
conclusion of the exisJence·of copan;_enary property. While accepting 
_ that in the course of considfrin·gan application for amendment, its meri_ts · 
or demerits should not be evaluated, the High Court nevertheless held 
that the amendment in the present case was untenable on merits. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8. On behalf of the appellant, it
has been urged that necessary 
averments about the ancestral nature of the property are contained in 
the original written statement. Hence, it was urged th~1t the averments 
which were sought to be elaborated in the amended writlef! statement 
had their genesis in the original written statement: Based on this premise, 
· it was urged that the amendment was correctly allowed by the Trial 
Court. The High Court, it was urged, ought not to have interfered under 
Article 227 of the Constitution with an order of the Trial Court allowing 
the amendment. Moreover, it was urged that at the stage of allowing an 
amendment, the court is not justified in considering the merits of the 
case which is sought to be pleaded. The High Court; it was submitted, 
had declined 'to allow the amendment after reviewing the merits of the 
defence raised, which was impermissible. The appellant also urged that 
the respondent hiid already filed. an application for review of the order 
passed by the Trial Court on 11April2016, allowing the amendmentin 
spite of which, a petition was filed under Article 227. 
'(1986) 3 sec 567 
'< t 987) 1 sec 204
• 
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA v. SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA 
537 
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
9. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondent 
that the written statement as originally filed was based on a challenge to 
the deed of relinquishment executed by the appellant in favour of his 
mother Sharda Rani Bhatia. The appellant also sought to plead an oral 
arrangement to the effect that his posl'ession of the suit property would 
not be disturbed. This, it was urged, amounted to an admission that the 
property was the self-acquired property of Ratan Lal Bhatia and the 
appellant cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission by amending 
the written statement. Moreover, it was urged that issues were framed 
on 14 August 2003. The respondent had filed its evidence on affidavit 
and the trial had already commenced prior to the filing of the application 
A 
B 
for amendment of the written statement.In the absence of due diligence·. C 
on·the part of the appellant, the amendment could not have been allowed. 
The amendment, ii was submitted, changes the fundamental nature of 
the defence and is aimed at delaying the disposal of the suit. 
I 0. In the original written statement, the appellant had set up the 
pica that the property in dispute was in the nature of joint family property 
D 
and that even after the alleged deed of relinquishment, parties were 
living together <1s members of a joint hindu family. The written statement 
inter alia contains the following averments:
"10 ... The property is the joint family property. The sister of the 
respondent is married and well settled at her matrimoni;~I home... 
E 
The defendant, plaintiff and the said S C Bhatia were jointly 
occupying the said property as being the undivided joint family 
property. That everi after execution of the alleged relinquishment 
dee the abovesaid parties we.re living as joint family and the suit 
property being the undivided joint family... 
F 
That all family members were using ground floor, first floor and 
second floor jointly as undivided joint family property." 
In paragraph 12 of the written statement, the appellant has set up 
an oral family arrangement.thus: 
"12 ... That acting upon the oral family arrangement, an amount of 
Rs. 6, 00, 000/- was taken out of the common fund of the Joint 
Hindu Undivided Family. The said amount has been handed over 
to Dr R C Bhatia and Shri Shakti ~hatia both residents of Modi 
Nagar, UP on interest. The said two persons are regularly paying 
interest to the plaintiff." 
G 
H
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
In "the reply on merits'', the appellant has averred that : 
B 
c 
D 
' 
"2 ... The defendant is in possession of the first floor, second floor 
and terrace of the said property as owner as per the oral family 
settlement of the undivided Joint Hindu Property ... 
That all other assets movable as well as immovable including the 
factory in the name and style of Rattan Industries situated at 18 
DLF Industrial Modi Nagar, are still in joint possession and 
ownership and no division on metes and bounds has taken place. 
Though the "said property" has been divided by mets and bound 
as per the oral family armament. The plaintiff has made the present 
averment at the behest of her younger son Shri S C Bhatia with 
an ill intention and motive to deprive the defendant of his lawful 
occupation. That as per the said oral family arrangements, an 
amount of Rs. 6 lacs from joint funds has been handed over on 
interest to Dr R C Bhatia and Smt Shakti Bhatia, son in law and 
daughter of the plaintiff. That RC Bhatia and Smt Shakti Bhatia 
have been regularly paying interest to the plaintiff on the said 
amount." 
• 
11. This being the position, the case which was sought to be set 
up in the proposed amendment was an elaboration of what was stated in 
the written statement. The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction 
E 
under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case 
which was sought to be set up by
the appellant in the amendment. This 
is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not 
dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will 
eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court 
p 
transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna 
Lodhv National Insurance Company3, this Court has held that the 
supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is 
confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded 
within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction 
under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or 
G 
tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon 
which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court 
had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment 
of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was 
'(2003) 3 sec s24 
H
RAJ KUMAR BHATIA v. SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA 
539 
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227. Allowing the 
A 
amendment would not amount to the withdrawal of an admission 
contained in the written statement (as submitted by the respondent) since 
the amendment sought to elaborate upon an existing defence. It would 
also be necessary to note that it was on 21 September 2013 that an 
amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court, following which 
the appellant had filed a written statement to the amended plaint 
incorporating its defence. The amendment would cause no prejudice to 
the Plaintiff. 
12. In the view which we have taken, it has not become necessary 
to consider the alternative submission of the appellant namely, that 
recourse taken to the jurisdiction under Article 227 by the respondent 
after filing an application for review before the Trial Court was 
misconceived. Since the matter has been argued on merits, we have 
dealt with the rival submissions .. 
B 
c 
13. Hence, on a conspectus of the facts and having due regard to 
the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 227 which the High Court 
D 
purported to exercise, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned 
judgment and order is unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal 
and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The order passed by the 
Trial Court allowing the amendment of the written statement is 
accordingly affirmed. 
E 
14. There
shall in the circumstances be no order as to costs. 
Divya Pandey 
Appeal allowed.