Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a partition suit filed by the original plaintiff (Respondent No.1) seeking partition and possession of ancestral properties described in Schedules A, B, and C. Schedule A contained 36 items with survey numbers, areas, and assessments. The plaintiff alleged that he had spent money on certain lands and a house. In January 2009, the plaintiff filed an amendment application (Exhibit 128) to correct survey numbers, which was allowed by the trial court. The defendants (petitioners) challenged that order in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2009, which was disposed of by the High Court on 15-3-2010, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw Exhibit 128 with liberty to file a fresh application. Pursuant to that liberty, the plaintiff filed a fresh amendment application (Exhibit 151) in January 2011, seeking to delete and substitute certain survey numbers in Schedule A based on information obtained from retired revenue officers engaged to survey the lands. The trial court allowed Exhibit 151 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500. The defendants challenged this order in the present writ petition. The High Court held that since the trial had not commenced, the amendment was permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and no prejudice was caused to the defendants. The court noted that the amendment was necessitated by fresh information and that the defendants could still contest the amended pleadings. The writ petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Amendment - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to correct survey numbers in Schedule A based on fresh information from retired revenue officers. The trial court allowed the amendment subject to costs. The High Court upheld the order, holding that since the trial had not commenced, the amendment was permissible and no prejudice was caused to the defendants. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Liberal Approach - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court reiterated that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed before trial to avoid multiplicity of litigation, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the amendment sought to correct survey numbers based on information obtained after engaging retired revenue officers.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the trial court's order dated 27-1-2011 allowing the amendment application Exhibit 151 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Liberal approach to amendment
- Pre-trial amendment
- No prejudice to opposite party
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 30
Writ Petition No.3762 of 2011
Mr. S. M. Railkar for the Petitioners, Ms Sukruta Chimalkar i/b Mr. S.B.Prabhawalakr for the Respondent Nos.1 to 8
Dattaram Dharma Mayekar & Anr.
Abhimanyu Dharma Mayekar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment of plaint in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendants) sought to quash the trial court's order dated 27-1-2011 allowing the plaintiff's amendment application Exhibit 151.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was beyond the scope of the earlier amendment and would cause prejudice.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had earlier allowed an amendment application (Exhibit 128) on 25-2-2009, which was challenged in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2009. That petition was disposed of on 15-3-2010, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw Exhibit 128 with liberty to file a fresh application.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was justified.
Whether the amendment caused prejudice to the defendants.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the amendment sought was beyond the scope of the earlier amendment and would cause prejudice.
The respondents (plaintiff) argued that the amendment was necessitated by fresh information obtained from retired revenue officers and that no prejudice was caused.
Ratio Decidendi
Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed before trial to avoid multiplicity of litigation, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The trial court's discretion in allowing the amendment was not shown to be perverse or illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 27-1-2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri, by which Order the Application Exhibit 151 in Regular Civil Suit no.18 of 2005 for amendment of the plaint in terms of the proposed amendment contained therein filed by the Plaintiff came to be allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.500/.
In the context of the mandate of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiff has averred that the amendment sought by the said Application Exhibit 151 was necessitated in view of the information which he got after he had engaged some retired Revenue Officers to carry out survey of the lands in question.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 2005 for partition. The plaintiff filed an amendment application (Exhibit 128) in January 2009, which was allowed on 25-2-2009. The defendants challenged that order in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2009, which was disposed of on 15-3-2010, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw Exhibit 128 with liberty to file a fresh application. The plaintiff then filed a fresh amendment application (Exhibit 151) in January 2011, which was allowed by the trial court on 27-1-2011. The defendants filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 6 Rule 17
