Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Nitin Sitaram Waghmare and Subhadra Sitaram Waghmare, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan in two connected civil suits. The first suit, RCS No.537 of 2012, was filed by respondents Balu Kanha Gawade and Prakash Hemraj Teli (original plaintiffs) against the petitioners and their father seeking an injunction in respect of suit property bearing Survey No.44 Hissa No.(2b) ad-measuring 85 gunthas at Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The second suit, RCS No.149 of 2015, was filed by the petitioners along with their sister Neeta Raman Shinde (respondent no.4) against Drupadi Waman Bhoir and others seeking declaration and injunction. During the pendency of RCS No.537 of 2012, the original plaintiff (father of the petitioners) died, and the petitioners sought to amend their written statement to bring on record the death and other subsequent events, including the filing of RCS No.149 of 2015. The trial court rejected this application (Exhibit 101) on 29.08.2019. Subsequently, in RCS No.149 of 2015, the petitioners filed an additional written statement (Exhibit 105) which was also rejected by the trial court on 09.03.2021. The High Court considered the legality of these orders. The court noted that the amendments sought were to incorporate subsequent events and that the additional written statement was filed before the issues were framed. The court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to reflect the real controversy. The court also held that an additional written statement can be permitted at any stage before the issues are framed. The court set aside both impugned orders and allowed the petitioners to amend their written statement in RCS No.537 of 2012 and to file the additional written statement in RCS No.149 of 2015, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 each to the respondents. The court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of both suits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Subsequent Events - The trial court rejected the petitioners' application to amend their written statement to incorporate subsequent events, including the death of the original plaintiff and the filing of a subsequent suit. The High Court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to reflect the real controversy between the parties, especially when the amendment is sought before the framing of issues. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Pre-trial Stage - The trial court rejected the additional written statement filed by the petitioners in RCS No.149 of 2015 on the ground that it was filed after the written statement was already on record. The High Court held that an additional written statement can be permitted at any stage before the issues are framed, as it does not cause prejudice to the other side and helps in determining the real questions in controversy. (Paras 1-10) C) Civil Procedure - Multiplicity of Proceedings - Avoidance - The High Court emphasized that allowing amendments and additional pleadings would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure that all disputes between the parties are resolved in one go. The court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the petitioners to amend their written statement and file the additional written statement, subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for amendment of written statement (Exhibit 101) and rejecting the additional written statement (Exhibit 105) in RCS No.537 of 2012 and RCS No.149 of 2015.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 29.08.2019 and 09.03.2021, and allowed the petitioners to amend their written statement in RCS No.537 of 2012 and to file the additional written statement in RCS No.149 of 2015, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 each to the respondents. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of both suits.
Law Points
- Amendment of written statement
- Additional written statement
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Subsequent events
- Multiplicity of proceedings
- Liberal approach to amendments
- Pre-trial stage
- Issues not framed
