Holding

The applications under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be allowed; the application for production of documents by the respondents is upheld in dismissal.

Summary

The plaintiff, N.C. Bansal, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction concerning a property. The trial court dismissed the suit as non‑maintainable; an appellate court remanded the matter for trial. After remand, the plaintiff filed three applications: (i) under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC to file additional documents, (ii) under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the plaint, and (iii) seeking a direction for the defendants to produce original documents. Both the trial court and the High Court dismissed these applications. The Supreme Court held that, because the suit was still at the initial stage and the proposed amendment did not alter the nature of the suit, the applications under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 6 Rule 17 should be allowed, while the third application was upheld in dismissal due to lack of argument. The Court set aside the lower courts’ orders, permitted the amendment and filing of documents, and imposed a modest cost on the plaintiff.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC for filing documents.
Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint was justified.
Whether the application seeking a direction for the respondents to produce original documents should be dismissed.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 17, s. Order 7 Rule 14
Constitution of Indias. Article 227

Subjects

Civil ProcedureOrder 6 Rule 17Order 7 Rule 14Amendment of plaintFiling of documentsTrial stageSub judiceWrit petitionArticle 227

Judgment

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 353 353

N. C. BANSAL A
v.
UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 882 of 2018)
JANUARY 25, 2018 B
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 –
Whether in the pending suit in question, the two Courts below were
justified in dismissing the three applications filed by the plaintiff (i)
C
application u/Or.7, r.14 for filing of documents; (ii) application u/
Or.6, r.17 seeking amendment in the plaint; (iii) application seeking
directions against the respondents for production of some original
documents – Held: The two applications filed by appellant under
Or.7, r.14 and Or.6, r.17 should have been allowed and he should
have been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional D
documents – For the reason that Firstly, the suit is still at initial
stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the proposed
amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit;
Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the
plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the trial
E
Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years
it was sub judice in appeal – It is only after the Appellate court
remanded the case to the trial Court for its trial, the appellant filed
the applications in the suit – Fourthly, the Courts, in these
circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed
amendment – Insofar, as the third application for production of F
documents is concerned, no argument advanced by the appellant,
therefore, order of its rejection upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the
two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) under Or.6, r.17 G
and Or.7, r.14 should have been allowed and he should have been
permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents.
[Para 17][357-C]
1.2 It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the
H
353
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Secondly, the
proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the
nature of suit; Thirdly, the applications could not be said to have
been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been
dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages
and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after
B
the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its
trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and
sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents
in support thereof; Fourthly, the Courts, in these circumstances,
should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.
C So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application
too should have been allowed on the same grounds. When the
suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when
the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents
themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why
the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them. [Paras 18,
D
19][357-D-G]
2. So far as the third application for production of documents
by the respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by
the appellant. Therefore, the order of its rejection by the two
Courts below is upheld. The two applications filed by the
E appellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the
other under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are allowed, however,
subject to the appellant paying cost of the respondents. [Paras
20, 22][357-H; 358-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.882 of
F 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CMM No.1223 of 2016
Shantanu Bansal, Nitin Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
G Shrish Kumar Misra, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment
H and order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
N. C. BANSAL v. UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL 355
CORPORATION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Delhi in CM(M) No. 1223 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed A
the petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016 in
Civil Suit No.7930 of 2016.
3. In order to decide the short question, it is not necessary to set
out the facts in detail and mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.
4. The controversy involved in the appeal is whether the two B
Courts below were justified in dismissing the three applications filed by
the plaintiff in a pending suit, namely, (i) application under Order 7 Rule
14 of the Code for filing of documents, (ii) application under Order 6
Rule17 of the Code seeking amendment in the plaint, and (iii) application
seeking directions against the respondents for production of some original C
documents.
5. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the
defendants in the suit out of which this appeal arises.
6. The appellant (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No.
252/2005 now renumbered as (C.S. No 7930/2016) against the D
respondents (defendants) in the Court of JSCC-Cum ASCJ-cum-
Guardian Judge (West) Delhi.
7. The appellant’s suit is for a declaration and permanent injunction
in relation to certain properties (hereinafter referred to as “the suit
property”). The appellant has claimed the following reliefs: E
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble
Court be pleased - to pass the decree of declaration as the
said property (at the second floor) bearing No.21 NWA Club
Road, Punjabi Bagh Extn., New Delhi-110026 is not a
collateral security or not a mortgage property under the F
defendants and also to pass a decree of permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
thereby restraining the defendants its agents, servant,
attorneys, nominees etc. etc. from taking forcible
possession or selling of the said premises bearing No.21,
G
NWA Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extn., New Delhi-110026
(situated at second floor on plot no.21 in NVVA in the layout
plan of the Adarsh Shawan Co-op. House Building Society
Ltd. Colony known as Punjabi Bagh Extn. In the area of
Viii Madipur, Delhi-110026 as shown in red colour in the
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A site plan and from creating any interference in the use and
enjoyment of the said property, in the interest of justice.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants along with the cost of the suit.”
B 8. The respondents have filed their written statement and denied
the appellant’s claim set up in the plaint. The respondents, however, also
raised certain legal objections regarding the maintainability of the
appellant’s suit. The Trial Court upheld the objections raised by the
respondent and accordingly dismissed the appellant’s suit vide judgment/
C decree dated 20.09.2011 in the initial stage itself as not maintainable.
9. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal being R.C.A.
121/14/11 before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New
Delhi. By order dated 20.11.2014, the first Appellate Court allowed the
appellant’s appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the
D Trial Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the suit on
merits.
10. It appears that the respondents (defendants) did not take up
the matter to the High Court against the order of the first Appellate
Court and, therefore, the case has now gone back to the Trial Court to
E proceed with the trial in the suit.
11. After remand, the appellant (plaintiff), as mentioned above,
filed three applications in his pending suit. One was under Order 7 Rule
14 of Code seeking permission to file some additional documents, second
was an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the
F plaint and the third application was for a direction to the respondents for
production of some original documents.
12. The respondents (defendants) opposed the applications filed
by the appellant. The Trial Court by order dated 21.09.2016 dismissed
the applications filed by the appellant (plaintiff).
G 13. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Delhi. By impugned
order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s (plaintiff’s) writ petition
and upheld the order of the Trial Court.

H
N. C. BANSAL v. UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL 357
CORPORATION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

14. Against the said order, the appellant(plaintiff) has felt aggrieved A
and filed this appeal by special leave in this Court questioning its legality
and correctness.
15. Heard Mr. Shantanu Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal B
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while
setting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016 and also the
impugned order of the High Court allow the two applications filed by the
plaintiff (appellant herein), namely, application filed under Order 7 Rule
14 and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. C
17. We have perused the pleadings and also the two applications
under consideration filed by the appellant. In our considered opinion,
both the applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff) should have been
allowed and he should have been permitted to amend the plaint and file
the additional documents. D
18. It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage,
i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Second, the proposed amendment sought
in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the applications
could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the
suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial E
stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after
the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial, the
appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought permission
to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth,
the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing
the proposed amendment. F
19. So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application
too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have
allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still
at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents
filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained G
through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed
to file them.
20. So far as the third application for production of documents by
the respondents is concerned, no argument was advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, uphold the order of its rejection H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R.

A by the two Courts below. In other words, our order is confined to
consideration of only two applications mentioned above.
21. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion either on the merits of the proposed amendment or on the alleged
documents sought to be filed by the appellant. It is for the appellant to
B prove the case set up in the plaint including the amended pleadings so
also to prove the documents and its relevance in accordance with law
by adducing adequate evidence.
22. In view of forgoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order is set aside so also the order dated
C 21.09.2016 is set aside to the extent indicated above. As a consequence,
the two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e., one filed under
Order 7 Rule 14 and the other under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are
allowed, however, subject to the appellant paying a cost of Rs.10,000/-
to the respondents. Let the cost be paid by the appellant to the
respondents within one month.
D
23. Let the amendment be incorporated in the plaint as proposed
by the plaintiff in his application for amendment within one month. The
respondent is granted an opportunity to amend their written statement
and make consequential amendment in reply to the amended plea of the
plaintiff (appellant).
E
24. The appellant(plaintiff) is also allowed to file the additional
documents, as prayed by him. The respondent(defendant) is also granted
an opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal, if they so desire.
25. The Trial Court will then reframe the issues arising in the case
F in the light of the original pleadings and the amended pleadings and make
an endeavor to decide the suit in accordance with law preferably within
one year as an outer limit uninfluenced by any observations made by the
High Court in the impugned order and our observations in this order.

G Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.

H