On August 3, 2021, the High Court of Delhi pronounced a significant judgment on five petitions filed by M/s. BDR Developers Pvt Ltd. against Narsingh Shah and Shikha Shah. The petitions contested the orders passed in five separate suits initiated by the petitioner/plaintiff against various defendants, primarily for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, and mesne profits. This case presents an intricate interplay between different provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), specifically Order XII Rule 6 and Order VI Rule 17.

Background of the Case:
M/s. BDR Developers Pvt Ltd. claimed to be the landlord of several premises and sought eviction and recovery of dues from the respondents/defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed applications under Order XII Rule 6 of 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 respondents/defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which pertains to the amendment of pleadings.

The petitioner/plaintiff 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:
  This rule empowers the court to pronounce judgment based on admissions made by the parties, without waiting for a full trial. It 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:
  This rule 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:
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.

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

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein 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