Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Hamsaveni, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.04.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.760/2008, whereby the trial court allowed I.A.No.7 filed by the respondents (plaintiffs in the suit) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint. The suit was originally filed in 2008 for partition and separate possession of certain properties. The amendment application was filed in 2021, after a delay of about 13 years, seeking to include new properties and parties. The petitioner contended that the amendment was belated, would change the nature of the suit, and would cause irreparable prejudice to the defendants, especially since the evidence of the plaintiff had already been recorded. The respondents argued that the amendment was necessary to bring all properties and necessary parties on record. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the trial court had not properly considered the delay, the stage of the suit, and the fact that the suit had abated against one of the defendants (respondent No.4) who had died. The court held that allowing the amendment at such a belated stage would cause irreversible prejudice to the defendants and would alter the nature of the suit. The court also noted that the amendment would necessitate re-opening of evidence and cause further delay. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed I.A.No.7.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Delay and Laches - The petitioner challenged the order allowing amendment of plaint in a partition suit filed in 2008, where the amendment application was filed in 2021 seeking to include new properties and parties. The High Court held that the amendment was belated and would change the nature of the suit, causing irreparable prejudice to the defendants. The court set aside the impugned order, observing that the trial court failed to consider the delay and the fact that the suit had already been partly heard. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Prejudice to Opposite Party - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court noted that the amendment sought to introduce new properties and parties after the evidence of the plaintiff had been recorded, which would necessitate re-opening of evidence and cause hardship to the defendants. The court emphasized that amendments which cause prejudice to the opposite party or alter the nature of the suit should not be allowed at a belated stage. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Suit - Order 22 CPC - The court observed that the suit had abated against one of the defendants (respondent No.4) who had died, and no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record. The amendment application was filed after the abatement, and the trial court did not consider this aspect. The High Court held that allowing amendment in such circumstances would be improper. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, filed after 13 years of commencement of the suit, seeking to introduce new properties and parties, thereby altering the nature of the suit and causing prejudice to the defendants.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in O.S.No.760/2008, and dismissed I.A.No.7.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Delay and laches
- Prejudice to opposite party
- Cause of action
- Abatement of suit
