The Bombay High Court set aside the trial court’s order allowing an amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC after evidence had concluded. The Court emphasized the need for due diligence when seeking amendments at a late stage in proceedings. The decision to amend and include additional properties and parties, nine years after the original suit and after evidence was closed, was deemed an attempt to expand the suit unjustifiably.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
   • Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings
2. Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts

Ratio Decidendi:

An amendment to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC after the commencement of the trial or at the final hearing stage requires the applicant to demonstrate due diligence. Allowing such an amendment without due diligence, especially when it expands the nature and scope of the suit, is unsustainable in law. The Court held that Plaintiff’s belated attempt to amend, after completion of evidence and commencement of final arguments, constituted a lack of diligence and caused prejudice to the Defendants.

1. Introduction:

The writ petition challenges the trial court's order dated 22.02.2024 allowing an amendment application filed nine years after the suit's initiation.

2. Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Legal heir of original Defendant No. 1 (Defendant No. 1C)
• Respondents: Original Plaintiff and Defendants; other legal heirs.

3. Background:

• The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and injunction regarding 16 properties in Ratnagiri on 24.01.2014.
• The Plaintiff sought to partition ancestral properties among family branches.

4. Suit Description:

Plaintiff claimed that ancestral properties were divided among family branches and sought partition by metes and bounds. A dilapidated house (No. 237) became a point of dispute.

5. Amendment Application:

• Plaintiff filed an application to include 12 more properties and 19 additional defendants after evidence was concluded and the suit was set for final arguments.

6. Defendant’s Opposition:

The Defendants argued that the application aimed to improve the Plaintiff’s case and fill gaps, emphasizing the delay and lack of diligence.

7. Trial Court’s Decision:

The trial court allowed the application with costs, permitting Plaintiff to amend the plaint.

8. Writ Petition:

Defendant No. 1C filed the writ petition under Article 227, challenging the trial court's order.

9. Legal Arguments:

• Defendant’s Counsel (Mr. Marathe): Argued that amendments after evidence require due diligence. Referenced several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for caution at late stages.
• Plaintiff’s Counsel (Mr. Patil): Argued that amendments to include additional properties could facilitate proper identification and resolution.

10. Analysis by the High Court:

The High Court found that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the properties and parties at the time of the original suit. The delayed application lacked due diligence.

11-14. Plaintiff’s Conduct:

The Plaintiff had not initially included all relevant parties (e.g., sisters of Murari), and the amendment was an attempt to change the suit's nature.

15. Trial Court’s Error:

The High Court noted the trial court's failure to consider the real controversy and facts while allowing the amendment.

16-18. Impleading Additional Parties:

The High Court concluded that adding legal heirs at such a late stage was unnecessary and altered the nature of the suit.

19. Amendment Rejection:

The Court quashed the trial court's order, stating that the amendment was not essential for the real controversy.

20-23. Conclusion:

• The application suffered from delay and lack of due diligence.
• The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the final arguments within three months.

Subjects:

Civil Procedure, Property Law, Amendment of Pleadings

Partition Suit, Amendment of Pleadings, Due Diligence, Property Disputes, Bombay High Court, Code of Civil Procedure, Article 227.