Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: (1)
RCA DJ No. 191/24
PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA
Vs.
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
CNR No. DLCT01-019900-2024
14.07.2025
Present :- Mr. V. N. Chaturvedi, Ld. counsel for the Appellant
alongwith Appellant.
Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed, Ld. Counsel for the
Respondent alongwith Respondent.
Written arguments filed on behalf of Appellant in
support of the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for Appellant has filed a compilation of
judgments.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent has placed on record
one judgment titled as “Anita Jain Vs Praveen Kumar Jain”
passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Heard on applications.
List for orders at 4 pm.
(Shagun Sharma)
DJ-12 Central, THC,
Delhi/14.07.2025
At 4 pm
Present :- Mr. V. N. Chaturvedi, Ld. counsel for the Appellant
(joined through VC).
None for the Respondent.
Order on Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
and Order XLI Rule 27 CPC filed on behalf of Appellant.
-- 1 of 5 --
(2)
(1) An appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing
the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC, whereby the suit filed by the respondent
(plaintiff therein) was decreed for possession on the basis of
admissions made by the appellant (defendant therein).
(2) Arguments on Appeal were addressed by both sides
on multiple occasions and the matter was eventually listed for
filing of written submissions. However, instead of filing written
submissions, the appellant has filed two applications :-
(a) One under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking
amendment of the written statement;
(b) And another under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking
permission to place on record additional evidence.
(3) By way of the application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC, the appellant seeks to amend his written statement in the
suit filed before the Learned Trial Court. It is averred that in
paragraph 2 of the para-wise reply, the appellant had specifically
denied that the respondent herein, Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, is
the absolute owner of the suit property. It is submitted that such
denial was based on the facts and documents available with the
appellant at the relevant time. The appellant now contends that he
has come across a material document, namely the MCD reply
dated 02.04.2024, which, according to him, further fortifies his
defense. Through the proposed amendment, the appellant seeks
to plead that the respondent does not possess legal title,
ownership, or a subsisting license in respect of the suit property.
(4) In support of the application for amendment, the
appellant has placed on record judgments titled as Shikharchand
Jain Vs Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha & Ors (Supreme
-- 2 of 5 --
(3)
Court of India) AIR 1974 SC 1174, Pt. Ishwardas Vs State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Supreme Court of India) (1979) 4 SCC
163, Jayanandan & Anr Vs Suresh Kumar & Anr (Supreme Court
of India) Diary No. 2098 of 2020 and Hasmat Rai & Anr Vs
Raghunath Prasad (Supreme Court of India) AIR 1981 SC 1711,
(1981) 3 SCR 605 (1981) 3 SCC 103. It is contended on behalf
of Appellant that appeal is a continuation of the suit, and
therefore, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be
entertained even at the appellate stage. In the same vein, the
appellant has also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27
CPC seeking leave to place on record additional documents,
asserting that such a plea is legally permissible during the
appellate proceedings.
(5) Per contra, the applications are strongly opposed by
the respondent on the ground that the appellant, being a tenant, is
barred under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from
disputing the title of the landlord during the subsistence of the
tenancy. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Anita Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar
Jain”, which affirms the principle that a tenant cannot, during the
course of his possession, deny the title of the landlord.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning
(6) This Court is cognizant of the settled position that in
appropriate cases, both an amendment of pleadings and filing of
additional documents/ adducing evidence can be permitted at the
appellate stage. However, the present case stands on a distinct
factual footing. The appeal has been preferred against an order
passed by the Learned Trial Court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC,
on the basis of alleged admissions made by the
-- 3 of 5 --
(4)
appellant/defendant in the written statement. The suit has not
been fully adjudicated on all issues by the Learned Trial Court,
and the appeal lies only against the said judgment/order.
(7) Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has
admitted to be a tenant in possession in his Written Statement.
The present amendment application essentially seeks to
reintroduce and expand upon the earlier denial of the
respondent’s ownership/title qua the suit property, which is now
sought to be supported by the MCD document dated 02.04.2024
and other documents annexed with the Application under Order
XLI Rule 27 CPC.
(8) Even though applications under Order VI Rule 17
and Order XLI Rule 27 may be maintainable at the appellate
stage in appropriate circumstances, the amendments and
additional documents now sought to be introduced are not
relevant to the subject matter of the present appeal. The appeal is
confined to the correctness and validity of the judgment passed
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which is based on the admitted
relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. The
proposed amendment and the documents now sought to be filed
go to the root of ownership and title,which, in light of Section
116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant is estopped from
raising so long as he continues to remain in possession as a
tenant.
(9) The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the
Ld. Civil Judge was passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, i.e., on
the basis of admission, without any trial or evidence. Thus, the
stage of leading evidence has not even arisen before the Ld. Trial
Court and hence, the question of permitting “additional”
-- 4 of 5 --
(5)
evidence does not arise at all.
(10) As a net result of the observations made above, both
the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and under Order
XLI Rule 27 CPC are found to be devoid of merit and are
dismissed.
(11) Re-list for orders on Appeal filed on behalf of
Appellant on 12.08.2025.
(Shagun Sharma)
DJ-12 Central, THC,
Delhi/14.07.2025
-- 5 of 5 --