Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise out of a suit for declaration and injunction concerning property. The appellants, who were original defendants, sought to amend their written statement after four years to introduce a new defence inconsistent with their earlier stand. They also applied to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against them. The trial court dismissed both applications. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the trial court's orders. It held that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and would introduce an inconsistent defence, which is impermissible under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Regarding the ex-parte decree, the court found that the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance, as required under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment seeking to introduce inconsistent defence after 4 years - Held that amendment cannot be allowed as it would change the nature of defence and is barred by limitation (Paras 5-10). B) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - Sufficient cause for non-appearance - Held that mere filing of application without explaining delay and non-appearance is not sufficient to set aside ex-parte decree (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to allow amendment of the written statement and in refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed with costs. Trial court's orders refusing amendment and refusing to set aside ex-parte decree are upheld.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Limitation for setting aside ex-parte decree
- Inconsistent defence
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
