STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
LAWS(SC)-2006-12-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 01,2006

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

Rangamma W/o Subbaiah and Smt. Lakskmamma W/o Nagarju VS. Mahadeva S/o Mandi Mada Shetty [LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
PUTHILLAM RASHEED VS. KKUNNIYATHAM KAKKADA MARIYOMMABI [LAWS(KER)-2013-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
SAIYID SIRAJUL HASAN VS. SYED MURTAZA ALI KHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-114] [REFERRED TO]
KURLA KAMGAR CO-OP HSG.SOC LTD VS. KURLA KAMGAR CO OP HSG [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-138] [REFERRED TO]
TARA V GANJU VS. BASANT AND CO [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-198] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR NATH RAI VS. DEVMUNI KUER [LAWS(PAT)-2023-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
GURNAM SINGH SODHI VS. AMARJIT SINGH SODHI [LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-424] [REFERRED]
NAIB SINGH VS. HARNEK MOHD. & KHAIR DIN [LAWS(P&H)-2010-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
JACOB JOHN VS. JOHN [LAWS(KER)-2013-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
RATHNAMMA VS. VENKATAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-7-451] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKRADHAR PAITAL DECEASED BY LRS VS. GELHI BEWA DECEASED BY LRS [LAWS(ORI)-2011-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
C D VARADHRAJAN VS. S MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ BAHADUR AND 7 OTHERS VS. FASIUDEEN AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-161] [REFERRED TO]
KHELAWAN AND OTHERS VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHRAICH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-298] [REFERRED TO]
BULBULI DAS VS. ANITA DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2009-12-124] [REFERRED]
RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS. ARVINDBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-117] [REFERRED]
RADHEYSHYAM SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FT) NO 22, BHILWARA & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-9-163] [REFERRED]
SAJID P.A., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, PADIYATH HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, P.V.K MINA ROAD, THRIKKAKKARA VILLAGE, THRIKKAKARA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA [LAWS(KER)-2017-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
Sita Devi Jaiswara VS. Shankar Ram Jaiswara [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-7-276] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SARBUTHEEN VS. SIVAKASI SHAFI MADAHAB PERIA PALLIVASAL JAMATH [LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-404] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR NATH RAI VS. MOST. DEVMUNI KUER [LAWS(PAT)-2023-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
HARACHAND NAYAK VS. RAMAMANI MOHAPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-2007-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA VS. SMT. KUMESH KUMARI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-277] [REFERRED TO]
FARIDDUIN VS. TAHIRA & 6 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-523] [REFERRED TO]
PURCHASING MANAGEMENT VS. RAJAT PANDHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASHRI ALIAS RAJANI U BHAKTA VS. MARIA ELSA DE NORONHA WOLFANGO DA SILVA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI ANTONIO FRANCISCO LIGORIO FERNANDES, AND HIS WIFE, VS. SHRI INACIO FILIPE FERNANDES AND HIS WIFE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2011-11-175] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH & ANOTHER VS. DEVESH PRATAP SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJI JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH VS. I T THANKACHAN S/O THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA VS. GULAB DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-311] [REFERRED]
CHANAM NINGOL AHONGSHANGBAM ONGBI LOIDANG DEVI VS. R K TAMPHASANA SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI SHANKER DUBE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-104] [REFERRED TO]
SANT SINGH VS. JAGJEET SINGH SAWHNEY (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-244] [REFERRED TO]
NEMAI CHAND PAL VS. NADER CHAND ALIAS PRABHAT PAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL VS. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE RAMPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-138] [REFERRED TO]
ANNASO DHONDIRAM MANOLE AND ORS. VS. BHIMRAO LAXMAN KAMBLE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-328] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH AND ANOTHER VS. TEJSINGH & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-196] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH CHATURVEDI VS. PRANO DEVI ALIAS PARANI DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-179] [REFERRED TO]
SUMESH SINGH VS. PHOOLAN DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-139] [REFERRED TO]
S. KANTHIMATHIAMMAL AND ORS. VS. NAGAMMAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-572] [REFERRED TO]
MADAKANNU AMMAL; MURUGAN VS. S NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-581] [REFERRED]
SHILPABEN ALIAS GEETABEN VS. RUCHIR JAYANTIBHAI DESAI [LAWS(GJH)-2007-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
BRAJ BHUSHAN LAL AWASTHI VS. URMILA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU SINGH VS. NIRPATI BHUSAN HAZRA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHJAHAN VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
YOSHODABAI VS. UMASHANKER GUPTA [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-191] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK MUNDRA VS. NAVRATAN MAL JANUARY AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SWAMI VS. THAKUR JI SHRI SITA RAM JI [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-5-120] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAN VS. RAMACHANDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-842] [REFERRED TO]
JAMANBHAI NATHABHAI VS. BOGHABHAI MANJIBHAI VAGADIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
DYAMAVVA SHIVANANDAPPA BANAKAR AND ORS VS. GURUSHANTAPPA UJJAPPA MALAGIMANI AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-534] [REFERRED]
KAMALSHA ALLARAKHASHA DIWAN TRUSTEE OF MADARSHA DIWAN AND ORS VS. HUSSAINSHA AKBARSHA SAIYED AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-206] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRABHAI RATILAL MODI VS. SURESHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-1-240] [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAUT AND 3 OTHERS VS. RADHEY SHYAM [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-301] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT-I, GONDA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-172] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. NIRMAL KANT [LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. PREET SONAL INVESTMENTS & FINANCE CO PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTT. MANJULA VS. RAMESH KUMAR VIRMANI [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
BARUN KUMAR MALVIYA VS. ANIL KUMAR MALVIYA [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR DHONDIRAM GODME VS. DHARAMRAJ VISHNU GODME [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. SPECIAL COURT UNDER A P LAND GRABBING ACT HYDRABAD [LAWS(APH)-2012-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JIT VS. RAJ KUMARI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-487] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKE KUMAR BHOTIKA VS. ASHA RAO & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-197] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY AGARWAL VS. HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJ [LAWS(BOM)-2013-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. CANARA BANK [LAWS(BOM)-2012-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAMANNA AND ORS. VS. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-137] [REFERRED TO]
HIDANGMAYUM DWIJASEKHAR SHARMA VS. HIDANGMAYUM DEVASEKHAR SHARMA [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
YOVRAJ SINHA VS. RAM LAKHAN YADAV [LAWS(PAT)-2023-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
VARUN SINGLA VS. TEENA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAXMI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. SUKETUBHAI JAYANTILAL SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2015-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
PRATYUSH KUMAR RAY VS. VSKHAITAN CONSULTANTS LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2023-11-42] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant -Bank filed a suit against the respondent. The suit related to ownership of a plot admeasuring 610 ft. x 250 ft. situated in the town Yadgir. It was purchased by the plaintiff in a public auction. Allegedly, the respondent is now claiming back the said amount. The suit was initially filed for a decree for injunction. The respondent filed another suit in the same court also for a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Bank from constructing any building. The suit of the appellant was dismissed whereas the suit of the respondent was decreed. Appeals were preferred there against by both the parties. In the said appeals, an application was filed for grant of leave to amend the plaint. The said application for grant of leave to amend the plaint was allowed by the appellate court by an order dated 7.04.2003. The appellate court remanded both the suits to the trial court for their disposal afresh on merits. Second Appeals were filed by the respondent herein before the High Court. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment opined that the said application for amendment was not maintainable in view of the proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). On the said finding not only the order granting leave to amend the plaint was set aside, the appeals were also allowed and the matter was remitted to the first appellate court for its consideration afresh in accordance with law. The appellant is, thus, before us.
(3.)The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code is applicable in the instant case.
Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code reads, thus:

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Proviso appended thereto was added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 which came into force with effect from 1.07.2002. It reads as under:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
Section 16(2) of the Amending Act of 2002 reads as under:
16(2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or repeal under Sub-section (1) has taken effect, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 .

(a) *** ***

(b) the provisions of Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and by Section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 7 of this Act;

In view of the said provision there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the suit having been filed in the year 1998, proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code shall not apply.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.