Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.27/2012 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Kolar Gold Fields, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the trial court rejecting his application (I.A.No.13) for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 11.06.2009. The defendant had filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.13 seeking to amend the written statement to incorporate a specific plea that the agreement of sale was not legally enforceable as it was without consideration and that his signature was not affixed on the document. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it was filed belatedly and lacked bona fides. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the amendment was necessary for just adjudication of the dispute and that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs. The court observed that the amendment sought to raise a plea going to the root of the matter and that delay alone is not a sufficient ground to reject an amendment. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application, directing the defendant to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed if it is necessary for just adjudication and does not cause prejudice to the opposite party that cannot be compensated by costs. Delay alone is not a ground for rejection. (Paras 6-10) B) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Defence of Void Agreement - The defendant sought to amend written statement to plead that the agreement of sale dated 11.06.2009 was not legally enforceable as it lacked consideration and was not signed by him. The court held that such plea goes to the root of the matter and is necessary for effective adjudication. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Prejudice - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court found that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff as the amendment was sought before commencement of trial and the plaintiff could be compensated by costs. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the defendant's application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground of delay and lack of bona fides.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2021, and allowed I.A.No.13 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- liberal approach
- necessary for just adjudication
- prejudice to opposite party
- delay not sole ground
