Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia
Background
The case arose from a family property dispute in Delhi between two brothers, Raj Kumar Bhatia (appellant) and Subhash Chander Bhatia (respondent), after their mother's suit for possession against the appellant was continued by the respondent. The appellant had originally pleaded in 2003 that the property was joint Hindu family property and that an oral family arrangement governed its use; in 2016, thirteen years later, he sought to amend his written statement to elaborate this into a claim of coparcenary property with specific shares for grandchildren. The Trial Court allowed this amendment, but the Delhi High Court, acting under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set the amendment aside after examining its merits and finding it not bona fide.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limits of its Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction by evaluating the merits of the proposed amendment: a power the High Court does not have when merely supervising a lower court's exercise of discretion, as opposed to sitting in appeal. The Court found that the proposed amendment was not a new case but merely an elaboration of averments already present in the original 2003 written statement (which had already pleaded joint family property and an oral family arrangement), so allowing it caused no real prejudice to the respondent and did not amount to withdrawing any admission. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Trial Court's original order permitting the amendment was restored.
Lesson Learnt
A High Court exercising its supervisory (not appellate) jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot second-guess a trial court's decision to allow an amendment to pleadings by assessing whether the amended claim will succeed on its merits: that overstepping of a purely supervisory role is itself a ground for the Supreme Court to intervene.