Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 34/2009 before the Adhoc District Judge I, South Goa, at Margao, filed a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging two interlocutory orders: (i) order dated 19.1.2011 rejecting their application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint, and (ii) order dated 20.6.2011 rejecting their application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review of the earlier order. The suit was filed by the petitioners claiming ownership and possession of a property purchased by them under a sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, after the trial had commenced, the petitioners sought to amend the plaint to introduce a new plea. The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that the petitioners failed to show due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which mandates that after the trial has begun, no amendment shall be allowed unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The subsequent review application was also dismissed as no error apparent on the face of the record was made out. The petitioners then approached the High Court contending that the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment and review applications. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, the respondents (including the private respondents and the State), held that the impugned orders did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court observed that the trial court had correctly applied the legal principles governing amendment of pleadings after trial and review. The High Court noted that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 is not meant to correct every erroneous order but only those which are without jurisdiction or vitiated by a manifest error. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The court rejected the amendment application as the petitioners failed to show due diligence in raising the new plea before commencement of trial - Held that after trial has begun, amendment cannot be allowed unless the party satisfies the court that despite due diligence, the matter could not be raised earlier (Paras 2-4). B) Civil Procedure - Review - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The review application was dismissed as no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated - Held that review is not an appeal in disguise and the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view (Paras 5-6). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226/227 - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders as they did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity - Held that writ jurisdiction is not meant to correct every erroneous order but only those which are without jurisdiction or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders dated 19.1.2011 and 20.6.2011 rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC suffer from any jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned orders did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or error of law apparent on the face of the record. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227
- Error apparent on the face of the record
- Due diligence requirement for amendment after trial commencement
