Background of the Case:
In the case of M/s. BDR Developers Pvt Ltd. versus the respondents/defendants, the petitioner, M/s. BDR Developers Pvt Ltd., claimed to be the landlord of several premises and sought eviction and recovery of dues from the defendants. The petitioner filed applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows the court to pronounce judgment based on admissions made by the defendants. While the court had reserved orders on this application, the defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which pertains to the amendment of pleadings.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the court erred by not disposing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 before entertaining the application under Order VI Rule 17. They contended that once the matter was reserved for judgment, the court should not have considered the amendment application by the defendants. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants argued that the consideration of an application under Order VI Rule 17 was within the court's discretion and was not barred by the pending application under Order XII Rule 6.

Legal Provisions and Court's Analysis:
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC:
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC empowers the court to pronounce judgment based on admissions made by the parties, without waiting for a full trial. This rule aims to expedite the litigation process by allowing the court to dispose of cases where there is a clear admission of facts that entitles the plaintiff to a decree.

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC:
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides for the amendment of pleadings, allowing parties to make necessary alterations or additions to their claims or defenses. The court may permit such amendments at any stage of the proceedings to ensure that the real issues between the parties are adjudicated.

Court's Findings:
Discretionary Nature of Both Orders:
The High Court of Delhi highlighted the discretionary nature of both Order XII Rule 6 and Order VI Rule 17. The court has the discretion to decide whether to pass a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 or to allow an amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17. The court emphasized that the mere fact that an application under Order XII Rule 6 was pending did not preclude the consideration of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17.

No Prohibition on Amendment Applications:
The court found that there is no legal prohibition against considering an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17, even when the court has already heard arguments on an application under Order XII Rule 6. The trial court's decision to hear the amendment application was within its discretionary powers and aimed at ensuring that all relevant issues were appropriately addressed.

Discretion and Fairness:
The court underscored the importance of judicial discretion and fairness in dealing with procedural applications. It noted that the power to amend pleadings is intended to promote substantial justice and should not be denied merely on technical grounds. The court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by considering the amendment application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a comprehensive adjudication of the real issues.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petitions, affirming the trial court's decision to entertain the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The court clarified that the order did not reflect on the merits of the applications under Order VI Rule 17 or Order XII Rule 6, and the trial court was directed to dispose of these applications in accordance with the law. This case underscores the discretionary power of the courts to manage procedural applications in a manner that ensures substantial justice and comprehensive resolution of disputes.

Practical Advice for Litigants:
Litigants should be aware that courts may allow amendments to pleadings even at late stages of the litigation process. It is important to present compelling reasons for such amendments and demonstrate how they contribute to a fair and comprehensive adjudication of the issues. Additionally, parties should not rely solely on procedural grounds to challenge amendments but should focus on the substantive impact of the proposed changes.

Case Citation: BDR Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Narsingh Shah: 03.08.2021/CM (Main) 412 of 2020/DHC/Asha Menon H.J.

[The information is shared in the public interest. Readers' Discretion is advised as it is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539