Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Shashikant Jagannath Powar, filed a Suit for specific performance of a contract against the Respondents, Baburao Huvappa Kurhade (deceased through LRs) and others. During the trial, the Petitioner filed an application (Exhibit 136) to amend the plaint to claim the alternative relief of possession, stating that no new evidence would be led in support of this relief. The Trial Court, by order dated 18-1-2013, rejected the application on two grounds: first, that the amendment could not be allowed after the trial had begun, relying on the decisions in Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (2009(4) MhLJ 30) and Ajendraprasadji Pande Vs Swami Keshavprakashdasji N. & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 806); and second, that the application was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Trial Court also observed that if specific performance was granted, the terms of the decree would follow. The Petitioner challenged this order by way of a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the Petitioner had stated that no evidence would be led in respect of the alternative relief, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. The High Court held that the amendment was permissible as it did not require fresh evidence and the limitation argument was inapplicable to amendments of pleadings. The impugned order was set aside, and the amendment application was allowed. The Respondents were granted liberty to file an additional written statement if they so desired.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment after commencement of trial - Amendment can be allowed even after trial has begun if no new evidence is required and no prejudice is caused to the other side - The Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to claim alternative relief of possession, stating no new evidence would be led - The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that amendment cannot be allowed after trial has begun and that the application was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act - The High Court held that the amendment was permissible as it did not require fresh evidence and the limitation argument was inapplicable - The impugned order was set aside and the amendment was allowed (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner who has filed a Suit for specific performance should be allowed to amend the plaint so as to claim the relief of possession albeit alternatively.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 18-1-2013 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur is set aside. The application for amendment (Exhibit 136) is allowed. The Respondents are granted liberty to file an additional written statement if they so desire.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings can be allowed even after trial has begun if no new evidence is required and no prejudice is caused to the other side
- Limitation Act Article 137 does not apply to amendment of pleadings
- Alternative relief of possession can be claimed in a suit for specific performance
