Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiff, Edit II Productions, filed a suit seeking compensation for financial loss caused by the Defendants who allegedly siphoned funds from the Plaintiff's bank account by forging cheques. The Plaintiff also sought sale of 14 properties purchased with those funds. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff discovered that one of the properties, Flat No. 704, had been sold by the Defendants to third parties via an agreement for sale dated 15th September 2015. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion challenging that agreement as illegal and void. The main issue was whether the amendment to the plaint to include this challenge should be allowed. The Court held that the amendment was necessary for complete adjudication and did not change the nature of the suit. The Court rejected the argument of delay, noting that the Plaintiff had only recently become aware of the sale. The amendment was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 25,000.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment sought to challenge agreement for sale of property allegedly purchased with siphoned funds - Court allowed amendment as it did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for complete adjudication - Held that amendment can be allowed even after trial has commenced if no prejudice is caused to the other side (Paras 1-33).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to the plaint seeking to challenge the agreement for sale of the subject flat should be allowed, considering the delay and the stage of the suit.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion is allowed. The Plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as per the draft amendment. The amendment shall be carried out within two weeks. The Plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Respondents within two weeks.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- cause of action
- prejudice
- delay
- due diligence
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 105
Notice of Motion (L) No. 2304 of 2018 in Suit No. 461 of 2010
Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w Ms. Sapana Rachure for Applicant/Plaintiff; Ms. Kranti S. Anand for Defendants No. 24; Ms. Neeta Karnik for Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7
Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for compensation and declaration of sale agreement as void
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought amendment to plaint to challenge agreement for sale of flat and declaration that it is illegal and void
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants siphoned funds from its bank account by forging cheques and used the money to purchase properties, including the subject flat
Issues
Whether the amendment to the plaint challenging the agreement for sale should be allowed
Whether the amendment is barred by delay or lack of due diligence
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that the amendment is necessary for complete adjudication and does not change the nature of the suit
Defendants opposed the amendment on grounds of delay and that it introduces a new cause of action
Ratio Decidendi
Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed even after trial has commenced if it is necessary for complete adjudication and does not cause prejudice to the other side. The court has wide discretion to allow amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
The Applicant who is the Plaintiff in the above Suit has taken out the Notice of Motion challenging the agreement for sale dated 15th September 2015 in respect of Flat No. 704...
The Plaintiff had filed the above Suit claiming compensation on account of financial loss caused to the Plaintiff...
Procedural History
The Plaintiff filed Suit No. 461 of 2010 seeking compensation. During the suit, the Plaintiff discovered the sale of the subject flat and filed Notice of Motion (L) No. 2304 of 2018 seeking amendment to the plaint. The motion was heard and allowed on 5 September 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
