Date of judgement:
18 August 2021
Bench:
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon
Parties:
Petitioner – Valo Automotive Pvt Ltd
Respondent – Sprint Cars Pvt Ltd & Ors
Subject
In this case, the plaintiff challenged the order of the commercial court that denied them leave to amend/enhance the claim in the plaint and also barred them from producing new documents to support their contentions.
Overview
- Valo Automotive Pvt Ltd (plaintiff/petitioner) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.31,65,271/- along with the interest, against Sprint Cars Pvt Ltd & Ors (respondent/defendant). The matter was referred to mediation, but it failed. The respondents filed their written statements and then the case was fixed for filing of replication.
- In this case, the plaintiff filed the compilation of rejoinder affidavit to the written statement along with various other applications for judgment on admission. In addition to these, an application was made by them under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amending the Plaint and under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC for bringing on record documents which the plaintiff relied upon.
- The applications were moved by them to enhance the suit claim, from Rs.31,65,271/- to Rs.39,03,396/-. There was no change in the remaining part of the Plaint. This application was rejected by the Trial Court since the amendment would result in allowing the claim, which was relinquished by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, hence it couldn't be allowed. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the High Court.
- In the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that an error was committed by the Trial Court because the amendment was sought to enhance the sum of the claim and no change was sought in the nature of the suit. He further contended that the application was made at the earliest and the delay, if any, was only because of the mediation proceedings, which eventually failed. Hence, the application to amend and produce documents must be allowed.
- The counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff was in possession of all the documents, yet failed to file them in the first instance. He said the Trial Court had rightly concluded that since the plaintiff had claimed a lesser amount, he has relinquished the claim for the remaining amount. Hence, they should not be allowed to amend the plaint, keeping in mind Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. The counsel also relied upon Revajeetu Builders & Developers V. Narayanaswamy & Sons.
Issues
- At this stage of the suit, can the plaintiff be allowed to make an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC?
- If the plaintiff has mentioned a lesser amount in the plaint, does it imply that he has relinquished the claim of the remaining amount?
Legal Provisions
- Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – A court may allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings.
- Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC – Production of the documents by the plaintiff in support of his claims.
- Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC – Every suit must include the entire claim made by the plaintiff.
Judgement
- Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC gives power to the court to permit the parties to amend their pleadings, even after the trial has commenced, if the court is satisfied that amendments were not included in the pleadings at the initial stage despite due diligence by the parties concerned. The court pointed out that the current matter is still in the preliminary stage.
- The court held that in this case, the amendments sought are necessary to fully determine the dispute between the parties. The court also considered the effect of its dismissal like controversy and multiplicity of suits, etc. It said that the fact that the plaintiff seeks correction makes it evident that he has not relinquished his claim.
- Rejecting the argument of the respondent, the court reiterated that Order 2 Rule 2 has no application in deciding an order to amend the Plaint unless it is to incorporate claims that should have been raised in the initial stage. As a result, correction of claims cannot be denied in such circumstances.
- Justice Asha Menon also observed that the Trial Court referred to Order 11 Rule 5 CPC i.e. applicable to a commercial dispute, but it overlooked the provisions of Order 11 Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) CPC which allows the plaintiff to file documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant after the Plaint has been filed, which is precisely the intention of the petitioner i.e. to bring invoices on record.
- Hence, Order 11 Rule 5 CPC gives the court power to grant leave to the plaintiff to file documents not filed with the plaint. Keeping this in mind, the impugned order of the commercial court was set aside as being erroneous. Thereafter, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and file the documents before the commercial court within two weeks. However, this opportunity was subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the defendant before the next hearing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court ruled that under Order 11 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court can grant leave to the plaintiff to file documents that were not filed originally with the plaint.
Further, Justice Asha Menon allowed the petition which challenged the order of the commercial court dismissing applications to place additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14, which were not initially produced when the plaint was filed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
