Constitution of India (COI) – Article 227 – Power of Superintendence of High Court – Court held that interference under Article 227 is justified where there is a patent perversity in the subordinate court’s order or where failure of justice is evident – (Para 39, 40).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of Pleadings – Court held that amendments necessary to determine the real controversy between parties must be allowed – Delay in filing amendment not sufficient ground for rejection if no prejudice is caused to the other party – (Para 21, 24, 30).

Portuguese Civil Code – Articles 1566 and 1567 – Right of Pre-emption – Co-owners have the first right of purchase in the event of a sale of undivided shares – Sale executed in violation of this right deemed null and void – (Para 5).

High Court allowed the amendment, finding it clarificatory and essential to determine the real controversy, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the application.

Subjects: 

Amendment of Pleadings – Power of Superintendence – Right of Pre-emption – Injustice – Consequential Relief – Real Controversy

Nature of Litigation: Civil Suit filed for declaration, specific performance, and injunction regarding co-owners' undivided property rights.

Relief Sought: Petitioners sought to amend the prayer clause to include a directive for the execution of a sale deed in their favor for the agreed sum of Rs.48,00,000/-.

Reason for Filing: Petitioners claimed violation of their right of pre-emption under Portuguese Civil Code when the respondents executed a sale deed in favor of a third party without offering them the opportunity to purchase.

Prior Decisions: Trial court dismissed the amendment application, deeming the relief time-barred and altering the nature of the suit.

Issues:

1. Whether the amendment sought changes the nature of the suit.

2. Whether the relief is time-barred due to delayed filing.

3. Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondents.

Submissions:

a) Petitioners argued that the amendment was clarificatory and based on existing pleadings. b) Respondents contended that the amendment introduced a new relief and was time-barred.

Ratio:

The High Court emphasized the importance of procedural justice, stating that the amendment did not alter the suit's nature nor introduce new claims, and was necessary for fair adjudication – (Para 31, 33, 36).