Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Piedade Fernandes, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Margao, which rejected her application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioner was the defendant in the original suit, and the respondent, Charlene Leitao, was the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner discovered new facts that she sought to incorporate into her written statement. She also filed an application to produce additional documents before the appellate court. The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that the petitioner was well aware of the pleadings sought to be incorporated at the time of filing the written statement. The petitioner argued that the facts came to her knowledge only during the appeal and that the amendment was necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute. The respondent contended that there was no reason to incorporate the proposed pleadings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had acted irregularly by refusing the amendment. The court observed that the facts discovered during the appeal constituted sufficient cause for the amendment, and the amendment was necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application, directing the petitioner to carry out the amendment within two weeks and the respondent to file an additional written statement within two weeks thereafter. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner sought to amend the written statement based on facts that came to knowledge during the pendency of the appeal. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the facts at the time of filing the written statement. The High Court held that the facts discovered during the appeal constitute sufficient cause for amendment, and the trial court erred in refusing the amendment. The amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the facts at the time of filing the written statement, when the facts came to knowledge during the pendency of the appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2011, and allowed the amendment application. The petitioner was directed to carry out the amendment within two weeks, and the respondent was directed to file an additional written statement within two weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- sufficient cause
- knowledge during appeal
- liberal approach to amendments
- prejudice to opposite party
