Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are defendants in a partition suit (O.S. No. 3/2021) pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Ankola, filed an application (I.A. No. XIII) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to amend their written statement. The amendment sought to clarify that the suit property was in their exclusive possession and that the plaintiff was not in joint possession. The trial court rejected the application on 07/02/2025, holding that the amendment was sought belatedly and that the petitioners had not shown due diligence. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court examined the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the principles governing amendment of pleadings. It noted that amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to determine the real questions in controversy. The court found that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new case or cause irreparable prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. The court also observed that the requirement of due diligence is not an inflexible rule and can be relaxed where the amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the trial court's order, and permitted the petitioners to amend the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed unless they cause irreparable prejudice to the opposite party or introduce a completely new case. The trial court's rejection on grounds of delay and lack of due diligence was set aside as the amendment sought to clarify the nature of possession and did not change the basic structure of the defence. (Paras 6-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Written Statement - Due Diligence - The court observed that the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not an absolute bar and can be relaxed if the amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case. The petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground of delay and lack of due diligence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the trial court order dated 07/02/2025, and permitted the petitioners to amend the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- liberal approach
- due diligence
- prejudice
- partition suit
