Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sumita Pradipkumar Dixit, challenged an order dated 29.8.2009 passed by the trial court in RC Suit No. 187/1999, which rejected her applications for amendment of written statement and counter claim (Exhs. 223 and 225). The suit was originally filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for possession of the suit premises. Respondent No. 5 initially filed a written statement contesting the claim but later submitted to a decree. The petitioner then applied to be joined as a party-defendant, which was initially rejected by the trial court but allowed by the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 24/2002 on 26.1.2002. After being joined, the petitioner filed a written statement and counter claim on 16.12.2002, seeking a declaration that she was a lawful tenant or, alternatively, an irrevocable licensee. On 18.4.2009, she filed applications to amend the written statement and counter claim, which were opposed by respondents 1 to 4 and rejected by the trial court. The High Court considered the issue of whether the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the 2002 Amendment Act) apply to suits filed before 1.7.2002. The court held that the amendment applies only to suits instituted after the amendment came into effect, and the pre-amendment provision, which allowed amendments at any stage to determine the real controversy, continues to govern suits filed earlier. The court found that the trial court erred in applying the amended provision and rejected the applications. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to allow the amendments. The court also noted that the respondents would be entitled to file additional written statements if necessary.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Applicability of 2002 Amendment - The amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as introduced by the 2002 Amendment Act are not applicable to suits instituted before 1.7.2002, the date on which the amendment came into effect. The court held that the amendment applies only to suits filed after the amendment came into force, and the pre-amendment provision allowing liberal amendment at any stage continues to govern suits filed earlier. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement and Counter Claim - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Construction - The court allowed the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement and counter claim, holding that the trial court erred in rejecting the applications on the ground that the amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC applied. The court directed that the amendments be allowed, as the suit was instituted before 1.7.2002 and the pre-amendment provision permitted amendments at any stage to determine the real controversy. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the 2002 Amendment Act are applicable to pleadings filed before the date on which the amendment came into effect or to suits filed prior to the said date.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 29.8.2009, and directed the trial court to allow the applications for amendment of written statement and counter claim (Exhs. 223 and 225). The respondents are at liberty to file additional written statement to the amended pleadings.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- 2002 Amendment Act
- applicability to pending suits
- liberal construction of procedural law
