1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.882 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 9651 of 2017)

N.C. Bansal            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation & Anr.    ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the

final judgment and order dated 19.12.2016 passed

by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M)

No. 1223 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed

2

the petition and upheld the order of the Trial Court

dated 21.09.2016 in Civil Suit No.7930 of 2016.

3) In order to decide the short question, it is not

necessary  to  set  out  the  facts  in  detail  and

mentioning of the few facts alone would suffice.

4) The  controversy  involved  in  the  appeal  is

whether  the  two  Courts  below  were  justified  in

dismissing  the  three  applications  filed  by  the

plaintiff  in  a  pending  suit,  namely,  (i)  application

under  Order  7  Rule  14  of  the  Code  for  filing  of

documents, (ii) application under Order 6 Rule17 of

the Code seeking amendment in the plaint, and (iii)

application  seeking  directions  against  the

respondents  for  production  of  some  original

documents.   

5) The  appellant  is  the  plaintiff  and  the

respondents are the defendants  in the suit out of

which this appeal arises.

3

6) The  appellant  (plaintiff)  has  filed  a  civil  suit

being Civil Suit No. 252/2005 now renumbered as

(C.S.  No  7930/2016)  against  the  respondents

(defendants) in the Court of JSCC-Cum ASCJ-cum-

Guardian Judge (West) Delhi.

7)  The appellant's  suit is for a declaration and

permanent  injunction  in  relation  to  certain

properties  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  suit

property”). The appellant has claimed the following

reliefs:

“It  is,  therefore,  most  respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased - to pass  the  decree  of  declaration  as  the  said property (at the second floor) bearing No.21 NWA  Club  Road,  Punjabi  Bagh  Extn.,  New Delhi-110026 is not a collateral  security or not  a  mortgage  property  under  the defendants  and  also  to  pass  a  decree  of permanent  injunction  in  favour  of  the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining  the  defendants  its  agents, servant,  attorneys,  nominees  etc.  etc.  from taking  forcible  possession  or  selling  of  the said premises bearing No.21, NWA Club Road, Punjabi  Bagh  Extn.,  New  Delhi-110026 (situated  at  second  floor  on  plot  no.21  in NVVA  in  the  layout  plan  of  the  Adarsh Shawan  Co-op.  House  Building  Society  Ltd.

4

Colony known as Punjabi Bagh Extn. In the area of Viii Madipur, Delhi-110026 as shown in  red  colour  in  the  site  plan  and  from creating  any  interference  in  the  use  and enjoyment  of  the  said  property,  in  the interest of justice.

Any  other  relief,  which  this  Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in  favour  of  the  plaintiff  and  against  the defendants  along with the cost of the suit.”  

8) The  respondents  have  filed  their  written

statement and denied the appellant's claim set up

in the plaint. The respondents, however, also raised

certain  legal  objections  regarding  the

maintainability  of  the  appellant's  suit.  The  Trial

Court  upheld  the  objections  raised  by  the

respondent  and  accordingly  dismissed  the

appellant's  suit  vide   judgment/decree  dated

20.09.2011  in  the  initial  stage  itself  as  not

maintainable.

9)  The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal

being  R.C.A.  121/14/11  before  the  Additional

District  Judge,  Tis  Hazari  Court,  New  Delhi.  By

5

order  dated  20.11.2014,  the  first  Appellate  Court

allowed  the  appellant's  appeal  and  while  setting

aside  the  judgment/decree  of  the  Trial  Court

remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding

the suit on merits.  

10) It  appears  that  the  respondents  (defendants)

did not take up the matter to the High Court against

the order of the first Appellate Court and, therefore,

the case has now gone back to the Trial Court to

proceed with the trial in the suit.

11) After  remand,  the  appellant  (plaintiff),  as

mentioned  above,  filed  three  applications  in  his

pending suit.  One was under Order 7 Rule  14 of

Code  seeking  permission  to  file  some  additional

documents, second was an application under Order

6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint and the

third  application  was  for  a  direction  to  the

6

respondents  for  production  of  some  original

documents.  

12) The  respondents  (defendants)  opposed  the

applications filed by the appellant. The Trial Court

by  order  dated  21.09.2016  dismissed  the

applications filed by the appellant (plaintiff).  

13) The  appellant  felt  aggrieved  and  filed  writ

petition  under  Article  227  of  the  Constitution  of

India  in  the  High  Court  of  Delhi.  By  impugned

order,  the  Single  Judge  dismissed  the  appellant's

(plaintiff’s) writ petition and upheld the order of the

Trial Court.  

14) Against the said  order, the appellant(plaintiff)

has felt  aggrieved and filed this appeal by special

leave  in  this  Court  questioning  its  legality  and

correctness.

7

15) Heard Mr. Shantanu Bansal, learned counsel

for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  S.K.  Misra,  learned

counsel for the respondents.

16) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeal and while  setting

aside the order of the Trial Court dated 21.09.2016

and  also  the  impugned  order  of  the  High  Court

allow  the  two  applications  filed  by  the  plaintiff

(appellant  herein),  namely,  application filed under

Order  7  Rule  14  and  the  application  filed  under

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.

17) We have perused the pleadings and also the

two  applications  under  consideration  filed  by  the

appellant.  In  our  considered  opinion,  both  the

applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff)  should

have  been  allowed  and  he  should  have  been

8

permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional

documents.

18) It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still

at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun;

Second,  the  proposed  amendment  sought  in  the

plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the

applications could not be said to have been filed by

the  plaintiff  belatedly  because  the  suit  had  been

dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in

its initial stages and for all these years it was  sub

judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court

remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial,

the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the

suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and

file  certain documents in support thereof;  Fourth,

the  Courts,  in  these  circumstances,  should  have

been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.

9

19) So far as the filing of documents is concerned,

this  application too  should  have  been allowed on

the  same grounds  on which we  have  allowed the

amendment application. In other words, when the

suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to

begin and when the documents filed are alleged to

be  that  of  the  respondents  themselves  having

obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the

appellant(plaintiff)  be not allowed to file them.  

20) So far as the third application for production of

documents  by  the  respondents  is  concerned,  no

argument was advanced by the learned counsel for

the appellant.  We, therefore, uphold the order of its

rejection by the two Courts below.  In other words,

our order is confined to consideration of only two

applications mentioned above.

21) We, however, make it clear that we have not

expressed any opinion either on the merits of  the

10

proposed amendment or on the alleged documents

sought  to  be  filed  by  the  appellant.  It  is  for  the

appellant  to  prove  the  case  set  up  in  the  plaint

including the amended pleadings so also to prove

the documents and its relevance in accordance with

law by adducing adequate evidence.

22) In  view  of  forgoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set

aside so also the order dated 21.09.2016 is set aside

to the extent indicated above. As a consequence, the

two applications filed by the appellant(plaintiff), i.e.,

one  filed  under  Order  7  Rule  14  and  the  other

under  Order  6  Rule  17  of  the  Code  are  allowed,

however, subject to the appellant paying a cost of

Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. Let the cost be paid

by  the  appellant  to  the  respondents  within  one

month.

11

23) Let  the  amendment  be  incorporated  in  the

plaint as proposed by the plaintiff in his application

for amendment within one month. The respondent

is  granted  an  opportunity  to  amend their  written

statement and make consequential  amendment in

reply to the amended plea of the plaintiff (appellant).

24) The  appellant(plaintiff)  is  also  allowed to  file

the additional  documents,  as prayed by him.  The

respondent(defendant)  is  also  granted  an

opportunity to file additional documents in rebuttal,

if they so desire.  

25) The Trial  Court  will  then reframe the  issues

arising  in  the  case  in  the  light  of  the  original

pleadings and the amended pleadings and make an

endeavor to decide the suit in accordance with law

preferably  within  one  year  as  an  outer  limit

uninfluenced by any observations made by the High

12

Court in the impugned order and our observations

in this order.    

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                     …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 25, 2018