Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged an order dated April 3, 2025 passed by the District Judge-3, Panvel, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in pending appellate proceedings. The underlying suit was Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 1985 filed by respondent no.1 for specific performance of an agreement dated January 12, 1980, by which the vendors from whom the petitioners later acquired the property had already agreed to sell the same to respondent no.1. The petitioners acquired the suit property under an instrument dated April 16, 1984, contending that the 1980 agreement had been validly terminated on December 9, 1983 and therefore they had been legitimately in possession. The suit was decreed on January 7, 1991. In the appeal filed by the petitioners, they made an application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC seeking to strike out the handwritten words 'and hand over possession' from prayer clause 26(a) of the plaint, alleging that these words had been inserted by hand without any order permitting amendment and behind their back, which constituted abuse of the process of the court. They claimed to have discovered the insertion only in 2024 upon inspection of the original court records, and that the plaint copy in their possession had never contained these words. Respondent no.1 countered by pointing to Issue No.18 framed in the suit on August 12, 1986, which explicitly asked whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession, and to a certified copy obtained on August 10, 1990 that showed the same handwritten words, well before the decree. The District Judge rejected the application, observing that it was not believable that the insertion resulted from abuse of process and that raising such an issue decades later was untenable. The High Court examined the contentions and found that the impugned order had correctly considered the contemporaneous record, including the prayer as corrected, Issue No.18, the analysis of that issue in the judgment, the absence of any protest at the framing of issues, and the silence for three decades. The court held that an application under Order VI Rule 16 requires proof of abuse of process patent and manifest from the record, which was absent. It also noted that the interpretation of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was left for the final hearing of the appeal, and the court deliberately refrained from making a firm finding on that issue. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the District Judge's order was not perverse and did not call for interference under Article 227.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court declined to interfere with District Judge's order rejecting application to strike out pleadings, finding no perversity or patent error; because appellate proceedings pending and issue raised after three decades, extraordinary jurisdiction not warranted - Held that order did not call for interference (Paras 15-16). B) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings - Abuse of Process of Court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 16 - Application sought to strike out handwritten words "and hand over possession" from prayer clause 26(a) alleging interpolation without permission; Court reasoned that contemporaneous record, including Issue No.18 and certified copy from 1990, contradicted claim of abuse and that the correction was plausible as a pre-filing or signed correction - Held that District Judge rightly rejected application as no patent abuse (Paras 11-14, 16). C) Specific Relief - Relief of Possession in Specific Performance Suit - Section 22 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Possession incidental to specific performance; amendment of plaint possible at any stage under proviso to Section 22(2); Court left final interpretation of Section 22 read with Section 55(1)(f) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to appellate final hearing, but noted the contention that possession need be specifically claimed - Held that no firm finding made at this stage (Paras 12, 17-18). D) Civil Procedure - Delay and Acquiescence - Raising of Objection to Pleadings Decades After Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 16 - Petitioners participated in suit with Issue No.18 framed in 1986 and did not challenge until 2025, silence after decree in 1991; this laches rendered their claim fanciful - Held that three-decade delay defeated application (Paras 13-14, 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge rightly rejected the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC seeking striking out of handwritten words 'and hand over possession' from prayer clause 26(a) of plaint in Special Civil Suit No.28 of 1985, and whether interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India was warranted.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the District Judge's order rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. It held that no abuse of process was established and no perversity in the impugned order. The Court refrained from deciding Section 22 Specific Relief Act issue, leaving it to final hearing of appeal.
Law Points
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly
- Order VI Rule 16 CPC requires patent abuse of process
- possession incidental to specific performance
- Section 22 Specific Relief Act requirements
- proviso to Section 22(2) allows amendment at any stage
- delay and acquiescence bar challenge
- contemporaneous record consistency
