Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dashrath Shiva Korlekar, legal heir of original Defendant No. 1 (Defendant No. 1C), challenged the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Learned Trial Court in Application below Exhibit '77' in RCS No. 7 of 2014. The respondent, Devendra Murari Korlekar, original Plaintiff, had filed a suit for partition of sixteen immovable properties and for injunction in 2014. The suit properties were joint Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties belonging to the ancestor Shiva. The plaintiff was one of the grandsons of Shiva, and the suit was filed against his uncles (sons and legal heirs of Shiva). The plaintiff averred that the ancestral property was divided proportionately among branches, and the only dispute was regarding house No. 237, which was in a dilapidated condition and required repairs. The evidence and witness action concluded in 2020, and the suit was kept for final arguments from 23.03.2021. The plaintiff's final arguments were completed, and when the defendants' arguments were to commence on 09.10.2023, the plaintiff filed Application below Exhibit '77' under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to add twelve more immovable properties and implead nineteen additional defendants. The plaintiff claimed he was illiterate and forgot to add these properties and parties. The Trial Court allowed the application, imposing costs of Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the amendment was sought after the trial had concluded and final arguments had commenced, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The properties and parties sought to be added were known to the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit in 2014. The amendment was filed casually, suffered from gross delay and laches, and would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. The court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the amendment application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates 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. In the present case, the plaintiff sought amendment after evidence was concluded and final arguments had commenced, to add 12 properties and 19 defendants. The court held that the plaintiff failed to show due diligence as the properties and parties were known to him at the time of filing the suit in 2014. The amendment was sought casually and would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. (Paras 11-17) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Delay and Laches - The amendment application was filed nine years after the suit was instituted and after the trial had concluded. The court observed that the application suffered from gross delay and laches. The plaintiff's explanation that he was illiterate and forgot to add properties and parties was not accepted as sufficient to demonstrate due diligence. The court held that delay is a relevant factor and the amendment cannot be allowed as a matter of right. (Paras 11-17) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Prejudice to Opposite Party - The proposed amendment sought to add 12 new immovable properties and 19 new defendants, which would change the nature of the suit and require a de novo trial. The court held that allowing such an amendment at the stage of final arguments would cause serious prejudice to the defendants, who had already led evidence and completed their arguments. The court emphasized that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the court's discretion is not absolute. (Paras 14-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed after the conclusion of evidence and commencement of final arguments, seeking to add 12 new properties and 19 new defendants, without the plaintiff demonstrating due diligence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Learned Trial Court, and dismissed the plaintiff's application below Exhibit '77' in RCS No. 7 of 2014.
Law Points
- Amendment after commencement of trial requires due diligence
- Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right
- Court's discretion to allow amendment is not absolute
- Amendment causing serious prejudice to other party must be rejected
- Delay and laches are relevant factors
- Inclusion of properties known at the time of filing suit is not permissible after trial
