Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (defendants in the suit) challenged an order dated 12 July 2005 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Kopargaon, rejecting their application for amendment of the written statement in a partition suit filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff). The suit, pending since 2002, sought partition and separate possession of suit property. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to incorporate subsequent events and include additional properties that had come into existence after the filing of the suit. The trial court rejected the amendment on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, relying on the settled principle that amendments before trial should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy, held that the trial court's order was erroneous. The court observed that the amendment did not alter the basic character of the suit, which remained a partition suit, and that allowing the amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order, allowed the amendment application, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously. The court also noted that the opposite party could be compensated by costs if any prejudice was caused.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Pre-trial Amendment - The court held that amendments to pleadings before trial should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between parties, unless it causes irreparable prejudice to the opposite party. The trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit, as the amendment only sought to incorporate subsequent events and additional properties, which did not alter the basic character of the partition suit. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Subsequent Events - The court held that a party is entitled to bring on record subsequent events that have a bearing on the subject matter of the suit, and such amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The rejection of the amendment was set aside, and the trial court was directed to allow the amendment and proceed with the suit. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement filed by the defendants before the commencement of trial, on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 12 July 2005, and directed the trial court to allow the amendment application. The trial court was further directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Liberal approach
- Subsequent events
- Pre-trial amendment
- Change in nature of suit
- Prejudice to opposite party
