Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Sattar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, on I.A. No.14 in O.S. No.504/2013, whereby the trial court rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner had originally filed the suit for permanent injunction against the original defendant, M. Khalid, in respect of a property. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Subsequently, the legal representatives denied the title of the petitioner and claimed that the petitioner was a trespasser. In view of this, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint to incorporate an alternative relief of possession and other consequential amendments. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the defendants, as the amendment was sought after the commencement of trial and after the death of the original defendant. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, observed that the amendment sought was only to incorporate an alternative relief of possession, which was already implicit in the original plaint. The court noted that the original plaint contained a prayer for possession in paragraph 17, and the amendment merely sought to add an alternative prayer for possession. The court further held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they could be compensated by costs, and the issues could be reframed and evidence reopened. The court also found that the petitioner had shown due diligence as the need for amendment arose after the death of the original defendant and the subsequent conduct of the legal representatives. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Alternative Relief - The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative relief of possession and other consequential amendments after the death of the original defendant and after evidence was led. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the defendants. The High Court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit as the plaintiff had already claimed possession in the original plaint, and the amendment merely sought to add an alternative relief. The court further held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they could be compensated by costs and the issues could be reframed and evidence reopened. The impugned order was set aside and the amendment application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment After Commencement of Trial - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Proviso - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires that amendment after commencement of trial must be allowed only if the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. The High Court found that the petitioner had shown due diligence as the need for amendment arose after the death of the original defendant and the subsequent conduct of the legal representatives in denying the title of the plaintiff. (Paras 7-9) C) Civil Procedure - Prejudice - Amendment of Pleadings - The High Court held that the test for allowing amendment is whether the opposite party can be compensated by costs and whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real controversy. Mere delay or the fact that evidence has been led is not a ground to reject an amendment if no irreparable prejudice is caused. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to incorporate alternative relief of possession and other consequential amendments, after the commencement of trial and after the death of the original defendant.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, on I.A. No.14 in O.S. No.504/2013, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Prejudice to opposite party
- Alternative relief
- Rejection of amendment application
- Liberal approach to amendments
