Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Basappa, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 11/02/2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag, in O.S. No. 36/2011, whereby his application (I.A. No. 18) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. He sought to amend the plaint to incorporate an alternative prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties or interfering with his possession, in the event the partition was not granted. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial and that a liberal approach should be adopted at that stage. The court noted that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit but merely added an alternative relief, which was permissible. The court also held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants that could not be compensated by costs. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to each of the contesting respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Amendment - Liberal Approach - The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative relief of permanent injunction in a partition suit. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court held that since the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial, a liberal approach should be adopted, and the amendment did not change the nature of the suit but only added an alternative relief. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the trial court's order. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Alternative Relief - Amendment to Include Alternative Relief - Permissibility - The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in a partition suit, sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer for permanent injunction in case the partition was not granted. The High Court held that such an alternative relief is permissible and does not change the nature of the suit. The court observed that the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the defendants that could not be compensated by costs. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to incorporate an alternative relief of permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 11/02/2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag, in O.S. No. 36/2011, and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to each of the contesting respondents.
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- amendment of pleadings
- pre-trial amendment
- liberal approach
- alternative relief
- no prejudice to opposite party
