Aerocomfort Anushka JV v. Krypton Height Builders & Infrastructure
CS(COMM) 1200/2016
Subramonium Prasad, J
Overview
The Delhi High Court decided an application filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of their written statement in a commercial recovery suit. The decision discusses the principles of amendment of pleadings, especially in commercial matters, and the difference between amendment of pleadings and belated production of documents under the Commercial Courts Act.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, M/s Aerocomfort Anushka JV, filed a commercial suit for recovery of ₹2,08,74,475/- along with interest, claiming that the defendants were owing them outstanding dues. The defendants, M/s Krypton Height Builders & Infrastructure, denied the claim and stated that it was actually the plaintiff who owed them money.
The defendants had previously filed a cross-suit (CS(COMM) 97/2017) for recovery of ₹3,17,10,185/-, based on the dishonoured cheques issued by the plaintiff. Their defence was based on a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24 February 2012, and a series of letters purportedly written by the plaintiff acknowledging their liability.
However, when filing the written statement in the current suit, the defendants did not include these important facts and documents. Realising their mistake, they filed the current application for amendment of the written statement to include the entire transactional history, MoU, correspondence, and cheque dishonour cases.
The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that:
- The facts sought to be added were always within the knowledge of the defendants;
- The proposed amendment would alter the character of the suit;
- A similar application had been previously rejected by the Court in a connected case at an advanced stage of the suit.
Legal Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the amendment of the written statement should be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, despite the defendants’ prior knowledge of the facts.
- Whether permitting such an amendment would alter the nature of the suit or prejudice the plaintiff.
- Whether documents could be introduced along with an amendment application in a commercial suit, in light of Order XI CPC.
Decision and Reasoning
The Court permitted the amendment in the written statement, holding that the suit was still at the pre-trial stage, with issues yet to be framed. Citing the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that amendments required for the determination of the real controversy should be freely allowed, especially if no time-barred claim or irreparable prejudice is caused.
The Court also distinguished the earlier order rejecting a similar amendment in another suit, holding that in the earlier suit, the proceedings were at the stage of final arguments, whereas in the present suit, the proceedings were at an initial stage.
However, the Court did not accept the additional documents on record. The Court held that in view of Order XI Rule 1(7) and Rule 1(10) CPC, documents not disclosed at the same time as the written statement in a commercial suit can only be introduced by filing a separate application for leave of the Court, after showing reasonable cause for non-disclosure.
Thus, although the amendment in the pleading was allowed in the interest of justice, the defendants were directed to follow the proper statutory procedure for introducing documents.
