Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M. Revanna, was Plaintiff No. 1 in a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties filed in 1993. The suit was initially compromised between Plaintiffs 1-5 and Defendants 1-3, but the compromise was set aside by the High Court on appeal by Defendant No. 6, who was later transposed as Plaintiff No. 6. After remand, evidence was recorded. In 2008, when the suit was posted for final arguments, Plaintiffs 1-5 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint, seeking to plead that a prior partition had taken place in 1972. The Trial Court allowed the amendment, but the High Court set aside that order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the amendment was belated, not bona fide, and would change the nature of the suit. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged partition since 1993 but did not seek amendment earlier. Allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to Plaintiff No. 6, who opposed the partition claim. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment after commencement of trial - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC restricts amendment after trial has begun unless the party shows that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The burden is on the applicant to prove due diligence. (Paras 5-6) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Bona fides - The court must consider whether the amendment application is bona fide or mala fide. An amendment that introduces a totally different, new, and inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental character of the suit may be refused. (Paras 5, 7) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Prejudice - If the amendment causes prejudice to the other side that cannot be compensated in money, it should not be allowed. Allowing the amendment would permit the plaintiffs to withdraw their admission that no partition had taken place, causing serious prejudice to the defendant. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, when the amendment was sought after commencement of trial and was allegedly belated and mala fide.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's order quashing the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment. The Court held that the amendment was belated, not bona fide, and would change the nature of the suit, causing prejudice to the respondent.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings after trial commenced
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Bona fides of amendment
- Change in nature of suit
- Prejudice to opposite party
