Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1988, challenged the order of the Ad-hoc District Judge-8, Pune dated 10/01/2020, which allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the trial court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was originally filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit property, claimed to be ancestral. During the pendency of the suit, on 25/07/2012, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to amend the plaint to include a prayer for partition and separate possession, alleging that the property was joint family property and that no partition had taken place. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit. The appellate court reversed that decision, allowing the amendment. The High Court upheld the appellate order, holding that since the trial had not commenced and no evidence had been led, the amendment was permissible. The court noted that the defendants had not yet filed their written statement and no issues had been framed. The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely sought to add a prayer for partition, which was necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute. The court emphasized that the test for allowing an amendment is whether the opposite party can be compensated by costs or would suffer irreparable prejudice. In this case, no prejudice was caused to the defendants. The court also observed that the amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The petition was dismissed, and the amendment was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial amendment - The court held that an amendment seeking to convert a suit for permanent injunction into a suit for partition and separate possession is permissible when the trial has not commenced and no evidence has been led, as no prejudice is caused to the defendants. The amendment does not introduce a new cause of action but merely clarifies the existing one. (Paras 1-15) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Prejudice to Opposite Party - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court held that the test for allowing an amendment is whether the opposite party can be compensated by costs or whether the amendment would cause irreparable prejudice. Since the defendants had not yet filed their written statement and no issues were framed, allowing the amendment would not cause any prejudice. (Paras 10-15) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Conversion of Suit - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court held that a suit for injunction can be converted into a suit for partition if the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. The court must take a liberal approach and allow amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment of the plaint seeking to convert a suit for permanent injunction into a suit for partition and separate possession should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the trial has not yet commenced.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the appellate order allowing the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Prejudice to opposite party
- Conversion of suit from injunction to partition
- Liberal approach to amendments
- Pre-trial amendments
