Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raju Danchand Bardia, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 13th October 2021 passed by the 5th Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court and Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 564 of 2013. The impugned order partly rejected the plaintiff's application (Exhibit-163) seeking leave to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was originally filed by M/s. Ratna Bardia (since deceased, now represented by legal heirs) seeking partition of suit properties by metes and bounds, separate possession, injunction, and mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of Late Mohanlal Deepchand Chordia and sought a one-half share in the properties as a legal heir. The suit was filed in 2013, and issues were framed on 30th April 2016. The trial commenced, and the plaintiff's evidence was recorded. In 2021, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to amend the plaint to add new properties, change the description of existing properties, and alter the basis of her claim from being a legal heir to being a coparcener under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court allowed the amendment in part (para (B) and paragraph (8) of the application) but rejected the remaining amendments, holding that they were sought after commencement of trial and would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the trial court's order. It held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendments after trial has commenced unless the party shows due diligence. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that despite due diligence, she could not have raised the new facts earlier. The proposed amendments would introduce a new case based on coparcenary rights, which was fundamentally different from the original claim based on inheritance. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not explained why the new properties were not included in the original plaint. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment After Commencement of Trial - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add new properties and change the basis of claim from being a legal heir to being a coparcener under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court partly rejected the amendment as it was sought after commencement of trial and would change the nature of the suit. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the amendment would introduce a new case and was not based on subsequent events or due diligence. (Paras 2-22) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that no amendment shall be allowed after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial. The plaintiff failed to show due diligence as the facts sought to be added were within her knowledge at the time of filing the suit. (Paras 15-18) C) Hindu Law - Partition - Coparcenary Rights - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The plaintiff initially claimed as a legal heir of her father, but later sought to amend to claim as a coparcener. The court held that this would change the nature of the suit from a claim based on inheritance to one based on survivorship, which is a different cause of action. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was correct in partly rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the amendment was sought after commencement of trial and would change the nature of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 13th October 2021. The amendment application was partly allowed and partly rejected as per the trial court's order.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- commencement of trial
- due diligence
- change in nature of suit
- partition suit
- legal heirship
