Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing a Chamber Summons for amendment of the written statement as barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted in 1998 by the Respondents (Plaintiffs) seeking declarations regarding shares and immovable property. The Appellants (Defendants) filed their written statement on 20 November 2006. On 19 January 2010, they filed a Chamber Summons seeking to amend the written statement. The Learned Single Judge held that Article 137 applies to applications for amendment of pleadings and that the right to apply arose on the day following the filing of the written statement, i.e., 21 November 2006. Since the application was filed beyond three years, it was dismissed as time-barred, though the Judge noted that but for the limitation bar, he would have allowed the amendment. The Defendants appealed, and the Plaintiffs filed cross-objections against the observation that the amendment would have been allowed. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's decision, holding that Article 137 does not apply to applications for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court reasoned that the right to apply for amendment arises when the need for amendment is discovered, not on the date of filing the written statement. The amendment sought to explain existing facts and did not introduce new facts. The court allowed the amendment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice between the parties, setting aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and allowing the Chamber Summons.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Limitation - Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to applications for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court held that the right to apply for amendment arises when the need for amendment is discovered, not on the date of filing the written statement - The application for amendment was filed within reasonable time and was not barred by limitation - Held that the Learned Single Judge erred in applying Article 137 to the amendment application (Paras 2-14). B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Multiplicity of Proceedings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court allowed the amendment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice between the parties - The amendment sought to explain existing facts and did not introduce new facts - Held that the amendment should be allowed as it would not cause prejudice to the opposite party (Paras 15-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and if so, whether the Chamber Summons for amendment of the written statement was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the Learned Single Judge dated 7 December 2011 is set aside. The Chamber Summons No.106 of 2010 is allowed. The Appellants are permitted to amend the written statement in terms of the draft amendment annexed to the Chamber Summons. The amendment shall be carried out within four weeks. The cross-objections are dismissed.
Law Points
- Article 137 of Limitation Act
- 1963 does not apply to applications for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Amendment of written statement can be allowed at any stage to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
- Right to apply for amendment arises when the need for amendment is discovered
- not on filing of written statement
