JOGYA ORAGON Vs. DINABANDHU ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding is initiated by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2003 extending the time for the defendants to incorporate the amendments to the written statement earlier allowed by the trial Court but not actually incorporated and also rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs to appoint a receiver for the suit properties specifically for harvesting the crops.

(2.) The Court below took the view that in view of the dismissal of the suit and in the circumstances it was not proper to exercise its discretion to appoint a receiver as sought for by the plaintiff-appellant. As regards the application made by the defendants under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extending the time for incorporation of the amendments to the written statement already allowed by the trial Court, that Court took the view that since it was a case where it was an omission to carry out the amendment under the peculiar circumstances referred to by it, it was fit case for allowing the defendants to carry out the amendment by putting the defendants-respondents in the appeal on terms.

(3.) The plaintiff, the petitioner before me, filed a suit for declaration of his title and other consequential reliefs including recovery of possession. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. They applied for the amendment of the written statement more than once. Those applications for amendments were allowed. In terms of Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants were bound to incorporate the amendments in the original written statement filed. But it appears that taking the stand that there was no adequate space for incorporating the long paragraph that was allowed to be added by way of amendment in the original written statement, the defendant purported to file a fresh written statement incorporating the amendments. The parties are seen to have gone to trial on the basis of that amended written statement and ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has filed the appeal. Realising that they had failed to incorporate the amendment in the original written statement in terms of Order 6, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants, explaining the circumstances, moved the appellate Court by way of an application for extending the time and permitting them to incorporate the amendments in the original written statement. The appellate Court, taking note of the circumstances obtaining in the case including the fact that the case fought in the trial Court based on the amendments to the written statement allowed by that Court by putting the defendants on terms, came to the conclusion that in the interests of justice, the defendant should be permitted to incorporate the amendments in the original written statement. The circumstances have been detailed by the appellate Court which justify the exercise of discretion by that Court in the manner it did. On going through that part of the order, I am satisfied that there is no justification in interfering with that discretion in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It appears to me that in the present impugned order, the appellate Court has only rectified the technical defects in the proceedings.