G HARISH CHAPLAIN Vs. PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kandaghat, (Camp Simla), -dated 5th April, 1965, allowing amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The Respondent Prem Nath, instituted a suit for damages on the allegation that the Defendants had defamed the Plaintiff by passing a resolution which contained certain statements defamatory of the Plaintiff. This suit was instituted in August, 1964. Three separate written statements, one by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the second by Defendant No. 4 and the third by Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 were duly filed and so was a consolidated replication on behalf of the Plaintiff to the respective written statements of the various Defendants. Issues were settled on 8th January, 1965, and 11th March, 1965, was fixed for the Plaintiff's evidence. On that date, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he had summoned Shri G.R. Samuel, who is also the Secretary of the Y.M.C.A., as his witness and he had also summoned some records mentioned in the application for summoning "witnesses. Those records had not been produced by the Defendant. The counsel had also summoned four witnesses who could not be examined without the said documents and also without copies of some other documents, for certified copies of which he had made an application. On this ground, adjournment was sought. It appears that Shri Samuel had also made an application that the documents summoned from him bore no relevancy to the case. The counsel for the parties referred to the pleadings, it being urged on behalf of the Plaintiff that he had made some averments regarding personal animosity and grudges borne by some of the Defendants and that these animosities and grudges were due to the fact that the Plaintiff while in office had pointed out certain defalcations in accounts, etc., by the Defendants and it was in this background that the Defendants got annoyed and eventually had the Plaintiff removed from the office. The learned Subordinate Judge felt that such allegations ought substantially to have been made in the plaint because this case is similar to the one in which parties rely on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, etc., within the contemplation of Order VI, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure. Of Course, this provision has not been mentioned by 'the Court below in the order, but I have no doubt that this is what the Court was thinking of when its order spoke of the allegations in the case in-hand being similar to those of fraud, etc. The Court also felt inclined to take the view that there should be as issue on this point in order to reach a proper decision in the case. On this view of the matter, the Court ordered that "if the Plaintiff wants to prove these facts as have been orally alleged today, he must amend his plaint and include these particulars in the plaint so as to enable the Court to reach at a proper decision. In case he fails to amend the plaint, he cannot be permitted to summon these documents which in that eventuality will be considered as having no relevancy in this case". Certain documents were, however, ordered to be produced in case the Plaintiff did not amend his plaint. The case was adjourned to 5th April, 1965. The Court below heard the arguments on the application for amendment of the plaint and proceeded to observe that no new ground had been introduced' by the Plaintiff and that the cause of action remained the same, only some particulars of malice, etc., having been introduced in the pleadings. The Court in the circumstances found no justification for disallowing the amendment.

(3.) It is in these circumstances that Rev. G. Harishr Chaplain, Christ Church, Simla, Defendant No. 3 in the Court below, has approached this Court on revision-challenging the order of amendment. On 25th May, 1965r after hearing the counsel at some length, I considered it necessary to send for the records of the case in order to be able to appreciate the true position. The Petitioner's learned Counsel has very strongly argued that in this case the stage for requiring further particulars as contemplated by Order VI, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, had long since passed and it was at the stage when the Plaintiff was leading evidence that the question of the relevancy of some documentary evidence arose. If the Plaintiff had not included in his plaint full particulars, then he should not be allowed to fill in the gaps. The Defendants did not require any particulars and it was the Court itself which virtually asked the Plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to enable the documentary evidence summoned by the Plaintiff to be placed on the record, which otherwise could not be so placed. The Defendants, it is emphasised, did not want any particulars. Nor did the Plaintiff seek amendment of his plaint. In these circumstances, it is argued, there was no occasion for the Court to direct the Plaintiff to amend the plaint and adjourn the case for this 1 purpose.