Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.80/2017 pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Davangere, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.09.2019 passed on I.A. No.15. The petitioners had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, before the commencement of trial, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint. The respondents filed objections to the amendment application. The trial court, by the impugned order, rejected the application without considering the objections and without assigning any reasons. The High Court noted that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking. The court observed that the trial court had not applied its mind to the objections raised by the defendants and had not given any reasons for rejecting the amendment. The High Court held that the order was unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The court further directed the trial court to consider the amendment application afresh, after hearing both sides, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Amendment - The trial court rejected the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs before the commencement of trial without considering the objections filed by the defendants and without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that the impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking, and that the court below ought to have considered the objections and passed a reasoned order. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Natural Justice - Reasoned Order - The High Court emphasized that even while rejecting an application, the court must assign reasons and consider the objections raised by the opposite party. The failure to do so vitiates the order. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC without considering the objections and without assigning reasons is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.09.2019 passed on I.A. No.15 in O.S. No.80/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Davangere is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration of I.A. No.15 in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, and to pass a reasoned order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Amendment of pleadings
- Principles of natural justice
- Reasoned order
- Pre-trial amendment
- Due diligence
- Prejudice to opposite party
