Arun Kumar Deshwal vs. Kapoor Plastic Works

Facts

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Deshwal, is the defendant in a Commercial Suit filed by Kapoor Plastic Works before the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff moved an application to place additional documents, specifically GST Receipts, on record, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The defendant was also permitted to file an additional affidavit for admission/denial of these documents. Issues had not yet been framed, and the next date before the Trial Court was September 2, 2024. The petitioner's counsel stated that the GST Receipts were filed after the written statement, preventing the defendant from referencing them. The petitioner sought liberty to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement to address these documents, which are crucial for the defence. No one appeared for the respondent.

Held

The Court held that the petition was disposed of as not pressed, as the petitioner's counsel stated they did not press the application. However, the Court granted the liberty sought by the petitioner to move an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before the learned Trial Court. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court would consider such an application and dispose of it in accordance with the law. It was clarified that the High Court had not made any observations on the merits of the proposed application, leaving the decision entirely to the Trial Court. The stage of the proceedings, where issues had not yet been framed, was noted as a relevant factor in granting this liberty. The ratio decidendi is that a party should be allowed to amend their pleadings at an early stage of proceedings if it is crucial for their defence and the amendment does not cause undue delay or prejudice, subject to the Trial Court's discretion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the defendant in a Commercial Suit, should be granted liberty to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement to incorporate references to newly placed GST Receipts, considering the stage of the proceedings before the Trial Court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the GST Receipts were placed on record after the filing of their written statement, thus precluding them from making any reference to these crucial documents in their defence. They contended that an appropriate response regarding these receipts is vital for their case. Revenue/State's Contention: No arguments were recorded for the revenue or State in this matter.