The Allahabad High Court while allowing a petition held that provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of amendment.
A single-judge bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari passed this order while hearing a petition filed by The Sinha Development Trust and Another.
The petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 9.2.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, S.D, New Court, Moradabad in Original Suit.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier petitioners have filed Original Suit before the trial Court for return of land and payment of compensation.
He next submitted that at the stage of final hearing, they have filed amendment application on 17.1.2024 for formal amendment to ensure the return of land and compensation in favour of trust and not the private person, which was rejected vide order dated 9.2.2024 on the ground that it has been filed at very belated stage.
He further submitted that though the due diligence of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002 has not been referred to any of the order, but the crux of impugned order is based upon the lack of due diligence.
He firmly submitted that in light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad vs Town Municipal Council reported in (2007) 1 SCC 765, amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC shall not be applicable to a suit, which was instituted prior to which pleadings have been exchanged.
He also pointed out that from the proposed amendment application, nature of suit would not be changed and in case suit is decreed, land or compensation whatsoever is the case, be vested in the trust and not in the hands of ancestors of R.A.N Sinha, who has created the trust, therefore, on both the grounds, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.
The Court observed that,
There is no dispute on the point that R.A.N Sinha created the trust in 1973. Now the trust is having a dispute with the respondent no 2 with regard to excess land acquisition. After amendment, in case suit is decreed either land or compensation as the case may be vested with the trust and not with the individual persons. Therefore, the intention of filing an amendment is bonafide.
From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparently clear that provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of amendment, therefore, this cannot be grounds to reject the amendment application.
“Therefore, under such facts and circumstances as well as law laid down by the Apex Court, the order dated 9.2.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, S.D, New Court, Moradabad is hereby quashed and petition is allowed. Petitioners are directed to carry out necessary amendments within two weeks. Further, the trial Court is also directed to decide the suit in accordance with law,” the order reads.