Page 1

1

Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  6273    OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.11428 of 2012)

Tara V. Ganju & Anr.   .. Appellants

Versus

Basant and Co. & Ors. .. Respondents

 J U D G M E N T  

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

  Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein instituted a suit on the original side of  

the High Court of Delhi which was registered as CS (OS) No.1861  

of  1995  for  a  decree  of  declaration,  cancellation,  permanent  

injunction, possession and damages regarding property known as  

Lakshmi  Niwas  with  the  superstructure  and  also  for  the

Page 2

2

consequential reliefs.   Few applications for amendments of the  

plaint  were  also  filed  earlier,  followed  by  the  present  on  

04.03.2005, before the trial  court proposing amendment to the  

valuation  para  of  the  plaint  and  also  to  bring  on  record  a  

subsequent  event.   The  said  application  was  filed  proposing  

amendment  enhancing  the  valuation  of  the  suit  from  

Rs.15,00,000/-  to  Rs.25,25,530/-.   Had  the  amendment  been  

allowed  it  would  have  resulted  in  ousting  the  pecuniary  

jurisdiction of the trial court and would have transferred  the suit  

back to High Court.  Yet another amendment proposed, was to  

bring  on  record  the  subsequent  event  of  vacation  of  the  suit  

property  by  tenant  M/s  Osram  Surya  (I)  Pvt.  Ltd.   Learned  

Additional  Judge dismissed the application for  amendment vide  

order dated 06.10.2009, which was challenged by the appellant  

before the High Court and the same was also rejected vide order  

dated 11.12.2009.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. Shri  Jayant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant submitted that what weighed with the courts below was  

that  if  the amendment  was allowed then the trial  court  would  

cease to have jurisdiction and matter should have passed over to

Page 3

3

the High Court.  Learned counsel, referring to the Judgment of this  

Court  in  Lakha  Ram  Sharma v.  Balar  Marketing  Private  

Limited  (2008) 17 SCC 671 submitted that merely because an  

amendment may take the suit out of jurisdiction of that court is  

no ground for  refusing an application preferred under Order VI  

Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   

4. Ms.  Bina  Madhavan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents,  on  the  other  hand,  contended  that  there  is  no  

infirmity  in  the  orders  passed  by  the  courts  below  warranting  

interference.  Frequent applications for amendment in the plaint  

and subsequent challenge to the orders before the highest court  

have caused considerable delay in the final disposal of the suit in  

question.  In order to give a quietus to the matter, counsel on  

either side suggested that a time limit be fixed for early disposal  

of the suit.   

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,  

to give a quietus to the litigation and to avoid further multiplicity  

of  litigation,  we  are  inclined  to  allow  the  application  for  

amendment preferred by the appellant and direct the trial court  

to  dispose  of  the  suit  in  accordance  with  law,  at  the  earliest,

Page 4

4

preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt  

of this order. Ordered accordingly.  Parties will cooperate for the  

early  disposal  of  the  suit  and  the  court  would  ensure  that  

unnecessary adjournments be not granted to the parties.    Orders  

passed  by  the  courts  below  are  accordingly  set  aside.   The  

respondents are given three weeks time to  file  their  amended  

written statement.  The appeal is disposed of, as above, with no  

order as to costs.

……………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

New Delhi, August  06, 2013