Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit No. 1210/2017 in 2017 seeking cancellation of a Sale Deed dated 13.11.2016 in respect of suit property. Subsequently, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint to implead two additional documents: a Development Agreement and a Power of Attorney, both dated 26.10.2007, which according to the plaintiffs were precursors to the impugned Sale Deed. The trial court rejected the amendment application by order dated 10.06.2023. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present writ petition. The Bombay High Court, after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioners, set aside the trial court's order. The court held that since the trial had not yet commenced, the amendment should be liberally allowed to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court noted that if the amendment was not allowed, the plaintiffs would be compelled to file a separate suit for cancellation of the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney, leading to multiplicity of proceedings. The court also observed that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as the amendment was sought before trial and the defendant would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to permit the amendment and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Amendment - The court held that an amendment sought before the commencement of trial must be liberally allowed to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The trial court's rejection of the amendment was set aside as it failed to consider that the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. (Paras 4-6) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Multiplicity of Proceedings - The court observed that if the amendment is not allowed, the plaintiffs would be compelled to file a separate suit for cancellation of the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney, leading to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the amendment was allowed to avoid such multiplicity. (Para 5) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Prejudice - The court noted that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as the amendment was sought before the trial had commenced and the defendant would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to implead two additional documents (Development Agreement and Power of Attorney) which are precursors to the sale deed under challenge.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.06.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the amendment and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Pre-trial amendment
- Multiplicity of proceedings
- Liberal approach
- Real controversy
