Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Chintamani Madhav Joshi, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, in O.S.No.58/2014, whereby the trial court rejected I.A.No.I filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint. The original plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The petitioners sought to amend the plaint to incorporate an alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount paid under the agreement, contending that they were unable to proceed with the specific performance claim due to the plaintiff's death and other circumstances. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and that there was delay in filing the application. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the amendment application. The court observed that the amendment sought was only to add an alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount, which did not change the nature of the suit. The court further noted that the suit was still at the pre-trial stage, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs. Relying on the settled principle that amendments before trial should be liberally allowed, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the petitioners to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - Pre-trial amendment - The court held that amendments to pleadings before trial should be liberally allowed if they do not cause prejudice to the opposite party that cannot be compensated by costs, and if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. (Paras 5-7) B) Specific Performance - Alternative Relief - Refund of Advance - The court held that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the plaintiff is entitled to seek an alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount paid, especially when the plaintiff has died and the legal representatives may not be able to enforce specific performance. (Paras 4-7) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment - Delay and Laches - The court held that mere delay in filing an amendment application is not a ground to reject it if the amendment is necessary for the just adjudication of the case and no prejudice is caused to the other side. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners (legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff) seeking to incorporate an alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount paid under the agreement of sale, in a suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, in O.S.No.58/2014, and allowed I.A.No.I filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioners to carry out the amendment and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Alternative relief
- Specific performance
- Refund of advance
- Pre-trial amendment
- Liberal approach
- No prejudice to defendant
