Dr Deepali K J vs. Mr B Nanjundappa

Facts

Dr. Deepali K.J. (Petitioner/Defendant) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 27, 2023, passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court). The order dismissed her application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to amend her written statement in Com.O.S.No.347/2022. The original suit was filed by Mr. B. Nanjundappa (Respondent/Plaintiff) for ejectment and recovery of rental dues. During the proceedings, the petitioner handed over possession of the suit property, and the dispute narrowed down to rental dues. The petitioner sought to amend her written statement to include a defense related to the respondent's alleged non-payment of statutory dues, specifically GST, on collected rents, which she claimed to have recently discovered. The trial court dismissed the amendment application due to prolonged delay.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Commercial Court. The Court held that while the Commercial Courts Act imposes strict timelines, the present case presented peculiar circumstances. The nature of the suit had significantly changed from one involving ejectment and recovery to solely recovery of rental dues. The petitioner's claim of recently discovering the respondent's alleged non-payment of statutory GST dues was a crucial factor. The Court reasoned that the 120-day limit for filing a written statement, as stipulated in the Commercial Courts Act, should not be rigidly applied when the suit's nature changes and a new defense emerges due to subsequent events or discoveries. Therefore, the Court found it a fit case to permit the amendment. The trial court was directed to allow the petitioner to file her amended written statement and proceed with the case expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of her written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, considering the changed nature of the suit and the petitioner's alleged recent discovery of the respondent's non-payment of statutory dues (GST)? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Order VI Rule 17 CPC and principles of amendment of pleadings). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the amendment was necessitated by changed circumstances, specifically the shift of the suit solely to recovery of money after possession was handed over, and her recent discovery of the respondent's failure to deposit statutory GST dues. She contended that the delay was justified by these factors and that the amendment would allow her to raise a relevant defense. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel justified the trial court's order, arguing for dismissal of the writ petition. No specific grounds or precedents were detailed in the judgment for the respondent's argument.