S. MALLA REDDYversusM/S. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY & ORS.

                         (2013] 6 S.C.R. 230


A                         S. MALLA REDDY
                                   v.
      M/S. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
                       SOCIETY & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 3914 OF 2013)
B
                           APRIL 18, 2013

             [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. IQBAL, JJ.]

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, rr.16 and 17 and
C Or. VIII, r.9 - Suit for declaration of title and for perpetual
  injunction - Petition filed by the defendants-appellants ul
  Or. VI, r. 17 seeking amendment of the written statement -
  Challenge to - Held: The relief sought for by the defendants
  in the petition u/Or. VI r. 17 was elaborately dealt with in two
D earlier pelitions filed by defendants u!Or. VI, r. 16 and Or. VIII,
  r.9 which came to be rejected - Filing of petition by the
  defendants u/Or. VI, r. 17 after about 13 years when the hearing
  of the suit had already commenced and some of the
  witnesses were examined, was wholly misconceived - Filing
E of subsequent application for the same relief was an abuse
  of the process of the Court - Abuse of Court.

          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r.16 and Or. VI,
    r. 17 - Distinction between - Discussed.

F      The plaintiff-respondent Society filed a suit for
  declaration of title in respect of property and for perpetual
  injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from
  interfering with possession. The defendants filed written
  statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and praying
G to the court to decree the suit. Subsequently, the
  defendants filed petition under Order VI Rule 16 CPC
  praying that the earlier written statement be struck out
  since the same was against their interests. Another
  petition was filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule
H                              230
   S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                  231
         OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
9 and Order VI Rule 5 of CPC seeking leave of the court          A
to permit them to file a detailed written statement. The trial
court dismissed both the petitions holding that the
defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to substitute
their written statement in the suit whereunder there was
an admission of the claim of the plaintiff-Society. The          B
defendant- appellants challenged the said order but lost
the claim upto this Court. Thereafter, the defendants-
appellants filed petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
seeking amendment of the written statement. The
amendment petition was allowed by the trial court and            c
against that the plaintiff-Society preferred revision
petitions. The High Court allowed the revision petitions
and set aside the order of the trial court, and therefore
the instant appeals.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court                            D

     HELD: 1. Order VI Rule 16 CPC deals with the
amendment or striking out of the pleadings, which a party
desires to be made in his opponent's pleadings. In other
words, the plaintiff or the defendant may ask the court for      E
striking out pleadings of his opponent on the ground that
the pleadings are shown to be unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious. This Rule is based on the principle
of ex debito justitia. The court is empowered under this.
Rule to strike out any matter in the pleadings that              F
appears to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or
vexatious or which tends to prejudice, embarrass or
delay the fair trial of the suit. On the other hand, Order VI
Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow either party to
alter or amend his own pleading and on such application          G
the court may allow the parties to amend their pleadings
subject to certain conditions enumerated in the said Rule.
[Para 22 and 23] [249-E-H; 250-A]
   2. In the instant case, although the defendant-
appellants filed the petition for striking out their own         H
    232     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A pleading i.e. written statement, labelling the petition as
  under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, but in substance the
  application was dealt with as if under Order VI Rule 17
  CPC inasmuch as the trial court discussed the facts of
  the cas,e and did not permit the defendants to substitute
B the written statement whereunder there was an
  admission of the suit claim of the plaintiff-Society. The
  trial court while rejecting the aforementioned petition held
  that the defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to
  substitute their earlier written statement filed in the suit
C whereunder there was an admission of the claim of the
  plaintiff-Society (respondent). Similarly in the revision
  filed by the defendants, the High Court considered all the
  decisions r~erred by the defendants on the issue as to
  whether the defendants can withdraw the admission
  made in the written statement and finally came to the
0
  conclusion that the defendant-appellants cannot be
  allowed to resile from the admission made in the written
  statement by taking recourse to Order VIII Rule 9 or Order
  VI Rule 16 CPC by seeking to file a fresh written
  statement. In the aforesaid premises, filing of a fresh
E petition by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
  after about 13 years when the hearing of the suit had
  already commenced and some of the witnesses were
  examined, is wholly misconceived. The High Court in the
  impugned order has rightly held that filing of subsequent
F application for the same relief is an abuse of the process
  of the court. The relief sought for by the defendants in a
  subsequent petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was
  elaborately dealt with on the two earlier petitions filed by
  the defendant-appellants under Order VI Rule 16 and
G Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and, therefore, the subsequent
  petition filed by the defendants labelling the petition
  under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is wholly misconceived and
  was not entertainable. [Para 24] [250-B-H]

H
    S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                   233
          OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                A
3914 of 2013.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.12.2007 in CRP No.
5139/2007 of the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad.
                                                                   B
                               WITH

C.A. Nos. 3915 and 3916 of 2013.

    Dushyant A. Dave, Huzefa A. Ahmadi, L.Nageshwar Rao,
P.S. Narasimha, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan,               c
Anindita Pujari, Anand Kumar Kapoor (for Laywer's Knit & Co.),
A. Venayagam Balan, M.P. Shorawala, Sridhar Potaraju,
Prabhakar, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ananga Bhattacharyya, A.
Venayagam Balan, Radha Shyam Jena, John Mathew for the
appearing parties.                                                 D
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The defendants (appellants herein) have assailed the       E
common order dated 28.12.2007 passed by a learned Judge
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the Revision
Petitions filed by the plaintiff-respondent (M/s Future Builders
Coop Society) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
have been allowed and the order passed by the trial court
allowing amendment in the written statement has been set           F
aside .

   . 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

     4. The plaintiff-respondent Mis. Future Builders Co-op.       G
Housing Society (in short "the plaintiff Society") filed a suit
against the defendant-appellants for declaration of title in
respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint
(in short "the suit property") and for perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with possession. The   H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A  case of the plaintiff-Society is that the Society is a registered
   Society under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act
   with the object to acquire or purchase land for the benefit of its
    members and render it fit for habitation. The Society was
   founded by several promoters including the first defendant-S.
B Malla Reddy (appellant herein). The plaintiff's further case is that
   for the purpose of registration under Co-operative Societies
   Act, it was necessary to show to the Registrar that they have
   entered into an agreement for purchase of land for the benefit
   of its members,. It was alleged that before the Society was
c registered, its promoters identified the suit land as fit for the
   purpose and negotiated with the owner and entrusted the work
   to the first defendant for effecting purchase after measurement
   and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to him. The first defendant
   alleged to have executed an agreement on 8.3.1978 in favour
   of the Chief PrQmoter of the Society, inter alia, agreeing that
0
   the first defendant will get the land measured and obtain legal
   opinion and pay the money to the land owner. It was agreed
   that the sale deed would be obtained in the name of the first
   defendant and a patta would be got transferred in his name or
   of his nominee for the benefit of the Society. The Society was
E registered on 28.08.1981 and defendant No.1 having obtained
   a Sale Deed dated 02.01.1979 and transfer of patta in the
   name of himself and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 (appellants herein),
   who are his wif¢ and sons in respect of the suit property, had
   delivered possession to the Society and they further agreed to
F ·secure the patta in the name of the plaintiff-Society. A
   Memorandum of Agreement dated 16.09.1981 was also
   executed to the effect that the plaintiff would hold the land as
   owner. It was alleged by the plaintiff-Society that the defendants,
   in spite of several requests and demands, were postponing the
G transfer of patta in respect of the suit property in its name on
   one pretext or the other. Hence, suit.

        5. On being summoned, the defendants appeared and
  filed a joint written statement on 19.01.1995 admitting the claim
H of the plaintiff stating that after filing of the suit there was a
   S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                       235
  OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J)
mediation wherein the dispute was settled and, accordingly, a          A
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to them and they were then
willing to transfer the patta in respect of the suit property in
favour of the plaintiff who had already acquired title. The
defendants, therefore, prayed to the court to decree the suit.
                                                                       B
      6. Controversy started when the defendants after filing of
the written statement and admitting the claim of the plaintiff filed
a petition being I.A. No.2217of1995, later renumbered as I.A.
No.162 of 2000, seeking permission to change their advocates
on the ground that they were acting detrimental to their interest
by filing written statement contrary to the instructions. The said     C
petition was objected by the plaintiff. The trial court by order
dated 07.02.2000 permitted the defendants to change their
advocates without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
Thereafter, defendants filed another petition under Order VI
Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) being I.A.                D
No.415 of 2000 on 28.02.2000 seeking leave of the court to
strike out the pleadings in the written statement or to expunge
the written statement and to permit them to file a detailed written
statement. It was alleged that the written statement filed earlier
was in collusion with the plaintiff contrary to the instructions       E
given by them to their advocate. Another petition was filed by
the defendants being I.A. No.416 of2000 under Order VIII Rule
9 and Order VI Rule 5 of CPC seeking leave of the court to
permit them to file a detailed written statement. Some more
developments took place during the pendency of those                   F
petitions. The youngest son of the first defendant filed a petition
being 1.,11.. 1819 of 2000 seeking leave of the court to implead
him as party to those two interlocutory petitions which was,
however, allowed and the said son was brought on record.
                                                                       G
     7. The trial court after hearing the parties dismissed both
the petitions being I.A. Nos.415 and 416 of 2000 by common
order dated 04.01.2002. The defendant- appellants challenged
the said order by filing Civil Revisions in the High Court being
CRP Nos.502 and 505 which were ultimately dismissed on
                                                                       H
    236      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   18.09.2002. The defendant-appellants then filed review petition
    being Review CMP No. 2102 of 2003 which was also
    dismissed on 25.06.2003. The defendants then preferred
    appeals to this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7940 to 7942 of
    2004 which were also dismissed on 15.03.2007.
B
       8. After tile defendants lost the claim upto this Court and
  their prayer Wi')S refused, a fresh petition under Order VI Rule
  17 CPC was filed seeking leave of the Court to amend the
  written statement. The said application was registered as I.A.
C SR No. 593 of 2007. The trial court rejected the said application
  by a non-speaking order. The order was challenged in the High
  Court in Revision which was disposed of with the directions to
  the trial court to register the application and dispose of the
  same by passing a reasoned order. The trial court in
  compliance of the aforesaid directions finally heard the
D amendment petition and by order dated 27.09.2007 allowed
  the petition permitting the defendants to amend the written
  statement.

        9. The plaintiff-Society challenged the aforesaid order
E allowing amendment of the written statement by filing revision
  petitions before the High Court. The said revision petitions filed
  by the plaintiff-Society under Article 227 were heard at length
  and finally tho~ petitions were allowed by the High Court vide
  order dated 28.12.2007 and the order of the trial court allowing
F amendment of the written statement was set aside. Hence,
  these appeals by special leave filed by the defendant-
  appellants.

        10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
  parties. Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, Senior Advocate and Mr.
G Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Senior Advocate appearing for the
  defendant-appellants drew our attention to various decisions of
  this Court for ttlle proposition that the admission made in the
  written statement can be withdrawn and inconsistent plea can
  be taken in the written statement. Learned counsel also tried
H to impress us th~t the order passed on the petition under Order
   S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                       237
  OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]

VI Rule 16 and Order VIII Rule 9 will not operate as res judicata      A
on the subsequent application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court has not
correctly appreciated the settled principle of law and has
passed the impugned order without considering the entire
gamut of the case.                                                     B

      11. On the other hand, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-Society (respondent
herein) firstly contended that the application for amendment is
liable to be rejected on the sole ground that it was filed 13 years
after the institution of the suit and that too when the trial of the   C
suit had begun and the plaintiff's witness was cross- examined.
Mr. Rao contended that the disruptive plea cannot be allowed
to be taken by way of amendment in the written statement.
According to the learned counsel, the ground taken by the
defendants for amending the written statement has already              D
been discussed in the earlier petition filed under Order VI Rule
16 and that under Order VIII Rule 9 and Order VI Rule 5 CPC.
The said applications were rejected by the trial court and the
order was affirmed by this Court also.
                                                                       E
      12. Before appreciating the rival contentions, we would like
to first reproduce the written statement filed by the defendant-
appellants in the suit. The written statement contains of only four
paragraphs, which are as under:-
                                                                       F
     "WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED UNDER ORDER 8 RULE
     1 CVIL PROCEDURE CODE by Defendants 1 to 4

     1. The first defendant was entrusted with the work of
     purchase of the land for the Plaintiff's Society before its
     incorporation. Since there was delay in the registration and      G
     incorporation of the Society, the suit land was purchased
     in the name of the First Defendant who is also one of the
     Promoters from Sri Mohammad Sarvar and others and the
     patta was transferred in the name of these defendants.
     These defendants held it for the benefit of the plaintiffs and    H
    238        Sli.IPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A         after the Society was incorporated on 28.8.2001, delivered
          the lan<il to the plaintiff and also executed a Memorandum
          dated 16.9.1981 which was ratified by the Plaintiff Society.

          2. One of the terms of the Memorandum was that the
          plaintiff agreed to pay the expenses incurred by the
B
          defendants for the development and protection of the land.
          Since the plaintiff postponed the settlement of accounts,
          these defendants did not apply for transfer of patta in
          favour of the plaintiff.

c         3. After the suit is filed there is mediation and settlement
          and a ~um of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) is
          paid as full quid to these defendants and these defendants
          are willing to transfer of the patta in favour of the plaintiff
          who has already acquired the title as stated in the plaint.
D
          4. Hence the suit may be decreed as prayed for but
          without costs.

                                                            Defendants

E                                           1.
                                            2.
                                            3.
F                                           4.
          Counsel for the Defendants 1 to 4

          Verificatibn

G         The facts stated above are true to the best of our
          knowledge, belief and information."

      13. From bare perusal of the written statement, it is
  manifestly clear that the defendant-appellants categorically
H admitted not only the case of the plaintiff but also acknowledged
   S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                     239
  OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- and their willingness for transfer of     A
patta in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, on the basis of
such admission, prayed to the court that the suit be decreed
but without any costs.

      14. As noticed above, the defendant-appellants filed
                                                                    B
application on 28.02.2000 under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC
being I.A. No. 415 of 2000 praying that the earlier written
statement be struck out since the same was against their
interests. Another application being l.A.No.416 of 2000 under
Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was filed praying that the defendants may
be permitted to file detailed written statement in the suit since   C
the earlier written statement filed by them was against their
interests. Both applications were taken up together by the trial
court and disposed of by common order dated 04.01.2002. The
trial court while rejecting the aforementioned two applications
held that the defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to             D
substitute their written statement in the suit whereunder there
was an admission of the claim of the plaintiff-Society. While
rejecting the applications, the trial court elaborately discussed
the facts of the case and considered the arguments advanced
by the lawyers as also the decisions relied upon by them with       E
regard to withdrawal of admission by filing fresh written
statement.

      15. At this stage, we must mention that even before the
suit was instituted by the plaintiff-Society, the defendants had    F
filed a caveat duly supported by affidavit through the same
advocate wherein the entire claim of the plaintiff-Society was
admitted. The only grievance made in the caveat was that
without settlement of the amount due as agreed under the
Memorandum of Agreement, the plaintiff-Society was trying to        G
lay out the suit land and to dispose of the same without paying
the amount due. The relevant paragraphs of the trial court order
dated 04.01.2002 are quoted hereinbelow (from pages 165-
170 of paper book):

    "16. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the   H
    240       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A         earlier suit litigation between the defendants and others,
          contended that there is no reason for the defendants to
          admit the suit claim of the plaintiffs society but for the
          reasons that fraud was played upon the defendants in filing
          their written statement. The learned counsel for the
B         petitioner relying upon the decision in BHIKAJI KESHAO
          JOSHI AND ANOTHER vs. BRIJLAL NANDLAL BIYANI
          and OTHl:RS (AIR 1955 SC 61 O) contended that the Court
          can order strike out of the written statement and permit the
          defendants to file substituted written statement with specific
c         pleadings. In the said decision, the petitioner in the said
          election petition made vague allegations of corrupt
          practices of the respondent and in the said circumstances
          it was found that the court can exercise its powers and call
          for better particulars. It is not the case of the petitioners -
          defendants herein that their written statement pleadings
D
          are vague and that therefore, to furnish better particulars
          the earlier wri1ten statement filed on their behalf may be
          struck out anti they may be permitted to file a detailed
          substituted written statement. In the written statement filed
          on behalf of the defendants in the suit OS No.408/94 (OS
E         1 of 2000 on the file of this court) the defendants had
          categorically admitted the entire suit claim and have further
          mentioned that they had no objection for the suit to be
          decreed. No doubt, it is the contention of the petitioners
          that their advocate Sri Sunil Kumar obtained their
F         signatures on blank paper and that is contrary to their
          instructions he prepared the written statement in collusion
          with the plaintiff- society admitting the suit claim for which
          they had complained against the said advocate to Bar
          Council of Andhra Pradesh. Ex.B.1 is the Xerox certified
G         copy of caveat number 178/94 on the file of lllrd Additional
          Judge, City Civil Court, against the plain~iff society on
          07.07.1994. In the said caveat petition also, the defendants
          in the suit admitted the entire claim of the plaintiff-society
          but the grievance of the defendants under that caveat was
H         without settlement of the amount due as agreed under the
 S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                     241
OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
 memorandum of agreement, the plaintiff society was trying         A
 to lay out the suit land and to dispose it of without paying
 his amount and that, therefore, if any injunction suit is filed
 against him with respect to the said property, he may be
 given notice. There is no explanation given by the
 petitioners herein in these petitions with respect to the said    B
 admission of the defendants herein in the said caveat
 petition. In fact, it was pleaded in the written statement in
 question by the defendants that after the suit was filed there
 was mediation and sum of Rs. 1,00,0001- was paid to them
 towards settlement. No doubt the said caveat petition was         c
 also filed by the same advocate Sri Sunil Kumar but in the
 affidavit filed in support of these two petitions, the 1st
 defendant did not explain about his admissions in the said
 caveat petition with respect to the suit schedule properties
 in favour of the plaintiff society.
                                                                   D
 17. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant-plaintiff
 Society relying upon the decisions in MODI SPINNING
 AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED AND
 ANOTHER VS. M/S. LADHA RAM AND COMPANY
 (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 680), B.K. NARAYANA PILLAI                E
 AND PARAMESWARAN PILLAI AND ANOTHER
 (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 712) and HEERALAL
 AND KAL YAN MALAND AND OTHERS (1998) 1
 Supreme Court Cases 278) contended that any
 amendment introducing entirely different new case and             F
 seeking to displace the plaintiff the benefit completed from
 the admission made by the defendants in the written
 statement, is not permissible. In the decision in MODI
 SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY
 LIMITED VS. M/S LADHA RAM AND COMPANY (AIR                        G
 1988 Supreme Court 680) by means of an amendment the
 defendant wanted to introduce an entirely different case.
 In the facts and said circumstances, it was held that the
 defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the
 case made out in their written statement and to substitute
                                                                   ..H
    242        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A         an entirely different new case and that if such amendments
          are allowed the plaintiffs will be irretrievably prejudiced by
          being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission
          from the defendants. In HEERALAL vs. KA YALAN MAL
          AND OTHERS (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 278, and
B         HEERALAL vs. KA YALAN MAL AND OTHERS (AIR
          1998 S11preme Court 618), it was held that once the written
          statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff,
          the amendment of such admission of the defendants
          cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and such withdrawal
c         would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff
          which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. In B.K.
          Narayana Pillai and Parameshwaran Pillai and Another
          (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 712, it was held though
          the defendant has a right to take alternative pleas in
          defence by way of amendment, it would be subject to
D
          qualification that (i) Proposed amendment should not result
          in injustice to the other side; (ii) any admission made in
          favour of plaintiff should not be withdrawn; and (iii)
          inconsistent and contradictory allegations which negate
          admitted facts should not be raised. Under the present
E         petitions, the petitioners - defendants are intending to take
          away the admission made by them in regard to the suit
          claim of the plaintiff society. The law is that no additional
          written statement should not set up a totally new case or
          state facts at direct variance with the original written
F         statement so as to completely change the issue in the
          case. This is not a case where the defendants are
          intending to take alternative pleas or that they are intending
          to explain the vague pleadings made by them in their
          written statement filed. This is also not a petition to file
G         addition~! written statement but as a petition to substitute
          the original written statement to get over the admissions
          made in favour of the plaintiff society. There is no material
          placed before the court to substantiate their affidavit. As
          already stated, the documents filed are not helpful to
H         support the affidavit of the petitioner in regard to the
 S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                    243
OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
 allegations made against their previous advocate so as           A
 to request the court to permit them to file a detailed written
 statement, in the place of their earlier written statement in
 which they had admitted the entire claim of the plaintiff
 society. A perusal of written statement which is sought to
 be substituted in the place of the earlier written statement     B
 discloses that the defendants plead an entire new case
 against the admissions made by them in the written
 statement. In view of the settled law of the Apex Court the
 petitioners cannot be permitted to request the court to
 strike out the earlier written statement filed by them or to     c
 permit them to substitute a fresh written statement in
 contrary to the admission made by them in their written
 statement.

 18. No doubt, the petitioner had filed criminal proceedings
 against the said Advocate and others and copies of those         D
 criminal proceedings are filed in this petition. Admittedly,
 the said Criminal Case is pending. Moreover, it was
 subsequent to the filing of I.A. 2217/95. It is well-
 established principle of law that the decisions of the Civil
 Courts are binding on the criminal courts and the converse       E
 is not true (vide decision in Karamchand vs. Union of India
 (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1244). The plaintiff society is
 not a party to the earlier civil proceedings, which are filed
 in this petition on the behalf of the Petitioners. Therefore,
 those documents, which are filed on behalf of the                F
 petitioners - defendants are not binding on the first
 respondent - plaintiff society. The revenue records, filed
 are also not helpful for the petitioners in support of their
 contention in this petition. Whether the chief promoter was
 by the date of the agreement was a minor as contended            G
 by the petitioners is also not a question relevant for the
 purpose of this petition. Thus, this court holds that the
 documents filed on behalf of the petitioner do not advance
 the claim of the petitions. For the foregoing reasons and
 in view of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court,         H
    244       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A         the petitioners-defendants cannot be permitted to
          substilute the earlier written statement filed by them in the
          suit whereunder there was an admission of the suit claim
          of the plaintiffs society, by way of an entirely new written
          statenllent taking contradicting pleas. Thus this court does
B         not find any merits in the petitions.

          19. In the result, the petitions are dismissed but without
          costs."

        16. Or! the basis of the findings recorded by the trial court,
    defendants' two petitions under Order VIII Rule 9 and Order VI
    Rule 16 CPC were dismissed holding that the defendants
    cannot be permitted to substitute the earlier written statement
    wherein thElre was an admission of the suit claim of the plaintiff-
    Society.

          17. A~grieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants
    preferred r¢vision petitions before the High Court. Before the
    High Court, it was argued th'at though some admissions were
    made in th¢ written statement, the same can be withdrawn by
    filing a fresh detailed written statement. Dismissing the said
    revision petitions, the High Court in its order dated 18.09.2002
    (pages 184 to 186 of paperbook) observed:-

                "'rhe court below had elaborately discussed this
          aspect I agree with the reasoning and finding thereof given
          by the court below on this aspect and I hold that they are
          perfect and valid.

                defore the court below the defendant relied on a
          Judgment reported in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi and another
          vs. Brijlal Nadanlal Biyani and others (AIR 1955 SC 610)
          and cotitended that the court can order striking out of the
          written statement and permit the defendants to file
          substitl!lted written statement with specific pleadings. The
          court below rightly distinguished the same and held that it
          is not applicable.
 S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                     245
OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
       The lower appellate court while dismissing the I.As.       A
 relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in
 HEERALAL vs. KA YALAN MAL AND OTHERS {AIR
 1998 SC 618), wherein it was held that once the written
 statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff,
 the amendment of such admission of the defendants                B
 cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and such withdrawal
 would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff
 which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. In another
 decision of the Supreme Court referred to by the Court
 below       in    B.K.     NARA YANA          PILLAI      vs.    C
 PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI AND ANOTHER (2000 (1)
 sec   712) it was held that though the defendant has a right
 to take alternative pleas in defence by way of amendment,
 it would be subject to qualifications which are (1) proposed
 amendment should not result in injustice to the other side       D
 and (2) any admission made in favour of the plaintiff should
 not be withdrawn and (3) inconsistent and contradictory
 allegations which negate admitted facts should not be
 raised.

      In the prese11t case the question now is whether the        E
 admission made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff
 can be withdrawn and the answer in the language of the
 apex court, is 'not permissible'.

         As already discussed the admissions made in the          F
 written statement are absolutely matching with the original
 stand taken by the 1st defendant in the affidavit filed to his
 caveat petition and also with the pleadings and the only
 dispute raised is with regard to payment of money to the
 defendant. In such a case, I am of the strong view that the      G
 defendant had not approached the court with clean hands
 in filing the present I.As.

       It has to be further noticed that the allegations made
 against the counsel are not established so far. Mere filing
 of a complaint before the police or before the Bar Council       H
    246        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A         of India, in the circumstances like the present one would
          only jeopardize the decency and dignity of the profession
          of the Advocate. This attitude of making wild and baseless
          allegations against the counsel has to be dissuaded by all
          means. ltlowever, this observation shall not be understood
B         as an opinion expressed by this court on the proceedings
          already ihitiated and pending against the said counsel. To
          put in a different way, the original stand of the defendant
          as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the caveat
          petition, demolishes or cuts across the very basis for filing
c         the present I.As. I am of the further view that if these types
          of allegations are made without substantiating them and
          if they are encouraged, it would lead to a situation where
          litigants with false cases would resort to smudging the
          career of genuine or innocent advocates. The conduct on
          the part of the defendant is palpably mischievous and this
D
          court cannot lend any kind of support to a litigant like the
          defendant, who has approached the court with unclean
          hands.

                It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in
E         another suit which is not connected with the present suit,
          the defe!ldant resorted to similar type of allegations against
          another counsel, and of.course the trial court did not take
          into con$ideration those allegations.

F                Tha court below had discussed in detail all the
          aspects and dismissed the I.As. with cogent and
          convincing reasons and I do not find any valid ground to
          interfere with the same. Accordingly, I pass the order as
          under.
G         The revisions petitions are dismissed with costs."

        18. The relevant paragraphs of the orders passed by the
  trial court and the High Court have been quoted hereinbefore
  mainly for the reason that while considering the petitions under
H Order VIII Rule 9 and Order VI Rule 16 both the courts have
   S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                    247
  OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
also gone into the question as to whether those admissions          A
could be withdrawn by permitting the defendants to file a fresh
written statement or by striking out of the earlier written
statement.

     19. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the appellants
                                                                    B
moved this Court in Civil Appeal No.7940-7942 of 2004.
Finding no merit, this Court dismissed the appeals by order
dated 15.03.2007.

     20. Instead of participating in the suit, the defendant-
appellants filed another petition purported to be under Order       C
VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement.
The said amendment petition was allowed by the trial court and
against that the plaintiff-Society preferred revision before the
High Court. The High Court by passing the impugned order
dated 28.12.2007 allowed the revision petitions and set aside       D
the order passed by the trial court. The High Court held as under


    "15. The ratio in THE UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC
    SUPPLY CO. LTD. case (AIR 1972 SC 1201) that E
    decision on any particular point given in an order of remand
    does not operate as res judicata in an appeal filed against
    the final order passed after the remand; does not apply to
    the facts of this case because there is no 'order of
    remand' in this case as plaintiff is not relying on any of the _F
    observations in an 'order of remand' to contest the
    applications made by the defendants.

    16. In view of the ratio in SATYADHYAN GHOSAL case
    (AIR 1960 SC 941), ARJUN SINGH case (AIR 1964 SC
    993) and THE UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC                          G
    SUPPLY CO. LTD. case (..supra) successive applications
    for the same relief cannot be permitted, and they can even
    be rejected as an abuse of the process of Court.

    17. It is contended by the learned counsel for the              H
    248        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 6 S.C.R.


A         defendants that subsequent to the filing of I.A. No.416 of
          2000, defendants came to know through the report of an
          expert that the written statement filed on their behalf was
          typed on the same typewriter on which the plaint was
          typed. In the common order challenged in these revisions,
B         the trial Court considered that contention and held that that
          contention has to be decided at the time of trial, but cannot
          be considered at this stage. For the reasons given by the
          trial court, that finding cannot be said to be erroneous.

          18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
G         plaintiff, the trial Court which agreed with the contention of
          the plaintiff that defendants cannot by invoking the plea of
          fraud aeek the amendment sought, allowed the petitions
          only on     the basis of the observations made in UDA Y
          SHAN'KAR TRIYAR V. RAM KALEWAR PRASAD
D         SINGH AIR 2006 SC 269. In the very same judgment the
          apex Court held that procedure, a hand maiden to justice,
          should never be made a tool to carry justice or perpetuate
          injustice by any oppressive or punitive use. The trial Court
          without keeping in view the fact the defendants cannot
E         repeatedly file the petition for the same relief which was
          negatived earlier, in a different form by quoting different
          provisions of law, thought it fit to allow the petitions and
          thereby virtually set at naught the order of dismissal of
          l.A.Nos.415 and 416 of 2000 passed by it earlier which
F         order was confirmed by this Court and the Apex <;__ourt
          also."

       21. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like
  to refer two of the provisions viz. Order VI Rule 16 and Order
G VI Rule 17 CPC which are involved in the instant case. These
  two provisions read as under:-

          "16. Striking out pleadings- The Court may at any
          stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or
          amended any matter in any pleading-
H
    S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                     249
   OPERATIVE HOUSING,SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
     (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or          A
     vexatious, or

     (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the
     fair trail of the suit, or

     (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the           B
     Court.]

     17. Amendment of pleadings- 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            c
     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.

           Provided that no application for amendment shall be       D
     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."

      22. Order VI Rule 16 CPC has been substituted by the           E
CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976. This provision deals with the
amendment or striking out of the pleadings, which a party
desires to be made in his opponent's pleadings. In other words,
the plaintifh>r the defendant may ask the court for striking out
pleadings of his opponent an the ground that the pleadings are       F
shown to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.
This Rule is based on the principle of ex debito justitia. The
court is empowered under this Rule to strike out any matter in
the pleadings that appears to be unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious or which tends to prejudice, embarrass        G
or delay the fair trial of the suit.

     23. On the other hand, Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers
the court to allow either party to alter or amend his own pleading
and on such application the court may allow the parties to
                                                                     H
    250       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   amend their pleadings subject to certain conditions enumerated
    in the said Rule.

          24. Although the defendant-appellants filed the petition for
    striking out their own pleading i.e. written statement, labelling
    the petition as under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, but in substance
8
    the application was dealt with as if under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
    inasmuch as the trial court discussed the facts of the case and
    did not permit the defendants to substitute the written statement
    whereunder there was an admission of the suit claim of the
    plaintiff-Society. The relevant portion of the order quoted
C   hereinabove reveals that the trial court while rejecting the
    aforementioned petition held that the defendant-appellants
    cannot be allowed to substitute their earlier written statement
    filed in the suit whereunder there was an admission of the claim
    of the plaintiff-Society (respondent herein). Similarly in the
D   revision filed by the defendants, the High Court considered all
    the decisions referred by the defendants on the issue as to
    whether the defendants can withdraw the admission made in
    the written statement and finally came to the conclusion that the
    defendant-appellants cannot be allowed to resile from the
E   admission m1'tde in the written statement by taking recourse to
    Order VIII Rule 9 or Order VI Rule 16 CPC by seeking to file a
    fresh written statement. In the aforesaid premises, filing of a
    fresh petition by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
    after about 13 years when the hearing of the suit had already
F   commenced and some of the witnesses were examined, is
    wholly misconceived. The High Court in the impugned order has
    rightly held that filing of subsequent application for the same
    relief is an abuse of the process of the court. As noticed above,
    the relief sought for by the defendants in a subsequent petition
G   under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was elaborately dealt with on the
    two earlier petitions filed by the defendant-appellants under
    Order VI Rule 16 and Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and, therefore, the
    subsequent petition filed by the defendants labelling the petition
    under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is wholly misconceived and was
H   not entertainable.
   S. MALLA REDDY v. FUTURE BUILDERS CO-                     251
  OPERATIVE.HOUSING SOCIETY [M.Y. EQBAL, J]
     25. After giving our full consideration on the matter, we do   A
not find any error in the impugned order passed by the High
Court. Hence, these appeals have no merit and are accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.

B.B.B.                                     Appeals dismissed.       8