Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mr. Suvarn Rajaram Bandekar, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Respondent, Mr. Armando Cardozo (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), in the Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao. During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and material particulars. The Trial Court, by order dated 11.12.2020, partly allowed the amendment, permitting some paragraphs but rejecting others. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The Petitioner contended that the entire amendment consisted of subsequent events necessary for effective adjudication and that the Trial Court's discretion was arbitrary. The Respondents opposed the amendment, arguing that it would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice. The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the proposed amendment and found that the rejected paragraphs were integral to the narrative of subsequent events and did not change the nature of the suit. The Court held that the Trial Court's order was not judicious and that the amendment should be allowed in full to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned order was set aside, and the amendment application was allowed. The Court directed the Petitioner to carry out the amendment within two weeks and the Respondents to file an additional written statement within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Subsequent Events - The Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and material particulars. The Trial Court allowed some paragraphs but rejected others. The High Court held that the amendment sought to introduce subsequent events which are necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court was arbitrary and not judicious. The impugned order was set aside and the amendment application was allowed in full. (Paras 1-21)
B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct an error of law committed by the Trial Court in partly rejecting the amendment. The Court held that the Trial Court's order was not a judicious exercise of discretion and warranted interference under Article 227. (Paras 3, 21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in partly rejecting the proposed amendment to the plaint, which sought to incorporate subsequent events and material particulars, and whether such rejection warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2020, and allowed the amendment application in full. The Petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment within two weeks from the date of the order, and the Respondents are directed to file an additional written statement within four weeks thereafter.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- subsequent events
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- liberal approach to amendment
- avoidance of multiplicity of litigation
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 185
WRIT PETITION NO. 329 OF 2021
Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vilas Pavithran for the Petitioner; Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Akhil Parrikar for Respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(d)
Mr. Suvarn Rajaram Bandekar
Mr. Armando Cardozo (since deceased) through his Legal Representatives: Maria Leticia Cardozo, Audrey Cardozo Fernandes, James Sebastiao, Jovek Cardozo, Sheweta Cardozo, Sunifer Cardozo
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and material particulars; the Trial Court partly allowed the amendment; Petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order and full allowance of the amendment.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction; during pendency, he sought to amend the plaint to bring on record subsequent events and material particulars.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao) passed an order dated 11.12.2020 partly allowing the amendment application, rejecting some paragraphs of the proposed amendment.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in partly rejecting the proposed amendment to the plaint?
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The entire amendment consists of subsequent events and material particulars necessary for effective adjudication; the Trial Court's discretion was arbitrary and not judicious; the reasons for allowing some paragraphs apply equally to the rejected paragraphs.
Respondents: The amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice; the Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
Amendment of pleadings seeking to incorporate subsequent events should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectively adjudicate the dispute. The Trial Court's partial rejection of the amendment was arbitrary and not a judicious exercise of discretion, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner/Plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, preferred the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira appearing for the Petitioner strongly contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the entire amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint consists of subsequent events and subsequent material particulars in order to effectively decide the suit.
The discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court while rejecting some paragraphs of the proposed amendment is arbitrary and without applying its mind and therefore, the same is not a judicious decision.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao. During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court passed an order on 11.12.2020 partly allowing the amendment. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court heard the matter and pronounced judgment on 12.10.2023, allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Article 227
