Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for partition of ancestral property filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 in 2005. They pleaded the existence of a compromise decree dated 14.10.2004 but did not seek its declaration as null and void. The appellant, defendant No. 2, raised this issue in the written statement filed in August 2005, arguing the suit was not maintainable without challenging the decree. The trial proceeded, and at the fag end, when fixed for arguments in February 2010, respondents filed an application to amend the plaint to add a prayer for declaration of the compromise decree as null and void and to affix court fee, citing oversight and mistake. The Trial Court dismissed the application, but the High Court allowed it subject to costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the amendment was permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC given the late stage and lack of due diligence, and whether the challenge to the compromise decree could be made in this suit. The appellant argued that the amendment changed the suit's nature, was time-barred, and violated the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 as trial had commenced. Respondents contended it was an oversight, no prejudice would occur, and it would avoid multiplicity of litigation. The Court analyzed the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, emphasizing that after trial commencement, amendment requires a finding that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The Court noted respondents pleaded only oversight, not due diligence, and facts were known since filing. Citing precedent on compromise decrees, the Court held such decrees are binding and can only be challenged before the same court under Order XXIII Rule 3, not in a separate suit. The Court concluded the High Court erred in allowing the amendment, as it sought to introduce a new case and change the suit's fundamental character without meeting due diligence requirements. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissing the amendment application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence Requirement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17 - Application for amendment filed at fag end of trial after commencement, seeking to add prayer for declaration that compromise decree is null and void - Court held that oversight alone cannot be a ground to allow amendment; proviso to Order VI Rule 17 requires conclusion that despite due diligence, matter could not have been raised earlier, which was not pleaded - Amendment rejected as it changes fundamental character of suit from partition to declaration (Paras 8-8.1). B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Challenge and Remedies - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXIII Rule 3 - Compromise decree dated 14.10.2004 passed by Lok Adalat - Court cited precedent establishing that consent decree operates as estoppel and binding unless set aside by same court on application under proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3; no separate suit or appeal maintainable - Held that amendment seeking declaration in different suit impermissible as remedy lies only before court which recorded compromise (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint at the fag end of the trial, seeking to add a prayer for declaration that a compromise decree is null and void, despite lack of due diligence and oversight being pleaded as the ground.
Final Decision
Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, dismissing the amendment application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- challenge to compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
- due diligence requirement
- estoppel and binding nature of consent decrees
- limitation for seeking declaration
