Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus MODERN TENT HOUSE & ANR.

Decided
16 August 2017
Judges listed
R.K. AGRAWAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 539 · 2017 INSC 747
Also cited as
  • (2017) 8 SCC 567 (25 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2017 SC 4966 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 17.04.2006 -Jassed by the High Court of Patna in C.R. No. 1249 of 2005 whereby ie High Court disposed of the civil revision filed by the appellants herein hile giving them liberty to raise such question in appeal in case the cision of the Trial Court goes against them.

p. 539, margin G

2

Facts of the case need not be mentioned in detail except to the extent necessary for the disposal of this appeal.

p. 540, margin A

3

The respondents (plaintiffs) have filed a moneysuit (Suit No.28 of 2002) in the' Court of sub-Judge-I Chhabra againstthe appellants (defendants) for recovery ofRs.41,59,418/-. The appellants filed their written statement and denied therein the respondents' claim by joining issues on facts. Issues have accordingly been framed on the basis of the pleadings. It appears that the evidence of respondents (plaintiffs) is over and that of the appellants (defendants) remains.

p. 540, margin A

4

The appellants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19Q8 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") seeking amendment in their written statement by adding two Paragraphs in their written statement. The respondents (plaintiffs) opposed the application.

p. 540, margin B

5

The Trial Court dismissed the application and the High Court in revision filed by the appellants upheld the dismissal giving rise to filing of this appeal by the defendants.

p. 540, margin C

6

The short question involved in this appeal is whether the two Courts below were justified in rejecting the appellants' (defendants) application for amendment sought in their written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code?

p. 540, margin D

7

It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the respondents against the appellants out of which this appeal arises is still pending. It is also not in dispute that the evidence of the parties is not yet over. In other words, the trial in the suit is going on.

p. 540, margin E

8

We have perused the amendment application filed by'the appellants. We find that firstly, the proposed amendment is on facts and the appellants in substance seek to elaborate the facts originally pleaded in the written statement; secondly and in other words, it is in the nature of amplification of the defense already taken; thirdly, it does not introduce any new defense compared to what has originally been pleaded in the written statement; fourthly, if allowed, it would neither result in changingthe defense already taken nor will result in withdrawing any kind ol--admission, if made in the written statement; fifthly, there is no prejudic-to the plaintiffs, if such amendment is allowed because notwithstandin--the defense or/and the proposed amendment, the initial burden to proi the case continues to remain on the plaintiffs; and lastly, since the trial is not yet completed, it is in the interest of justice that the proposed amendment of the defendants should have been allowed by the Courts below rather than to allow the defendants to raise such plea at the appellate stage, if occasion so arises.

pp. 540–541, margin F

9

In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application (M.A. No.28 of2002) dated 07 .04.2005(Annexure P-4) filed by the appellants under Order 6 Rule 17 of th~ Code is allowed: The appellants (defendants) are permitted to amend their written statement and incorporate the amendment as prayed in their application.

p. 541, margin B

10

The respondents (plaintiffs) are also given an opportunity to amend their plaint and adduce any further evidence, if they so desire before defendants are called upon to adduce their evidence.

p. 541, margin C

11

Since the suit is quite old, we direct the Trial Court to ensure its expeditious disposal in accordance with law preferably within 6 months from the date of parties appearance. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 04.09.2017.

p. 541, margin C