Application under O.VI R.17 of CPC should be considered on merits before exercising power under O.XII R.6 of CPC: Delhi High Court

By - Divisha Srivastava*

The Delhi High Court in a recent verdict has held that a court may accept an application to amend the admission made in pleadings even after reserving judgement on the basis of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

The bench of Justice Asha Menon was hearing a plea against an order of the trial court wherein the trial court had listed the matter for further hearing on the amendment application filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 17, irrespective of the fact that it had reserved its judgment in the matter on the basis of admission under Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV-A of CPC.

Also Read - Revisional jurisdiction can only be invoked when allowing the application will finally terminate the proceeding: Rajasthan HC.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that simply reserving an order on an application under CPC Order XII Rule 6 could not be interpreted as implying that the application would be accepted and the decision would follow.

Drawing a distinction between the phrases, “at any stage of the hearing” and “at any stage of the proceedings”, the bench observed that, “In Laxman Marotirao Paunikar v. Keshaorao Rambhau Paunikar, 2000 SCC OnLine Bom 169, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) opined that the wording of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was clear and that amendment could be effected “at any stage of the proceedings” irrespective of the fact that the hearing was complete, as amendment can be sought even at the stage of appeal.”

Also Read - Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of social fabric of this Country: Allahabad High Court.

In the considered opinion of the court, the power under Order XII Rule 6 could result in the final disposal of the case and the defendant would be deprived of his right to defend. Hence, “the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be considered on merits before the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is exercised by the Trial Courts”.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Divisha Srivastava is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from S.N.D.T School of Law, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog