Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Reliance Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, in Special Civil Suit No. 137/2006. The impugned order allowed an application filed by the respondents (defendants in the suit) for amendment of their written statement to introduce a plea of set-off. The petitioner had filed the suit for recovery of money, and the respondents had filed their written statement in 2006. In 2013, the respondents sought to amend the written statement to include a claim for set-off based on a subsequent event, namely, a recovery suit filed by them against the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the amendment on the ground of delay and lack of due diligence. The trial court allowed the amendment, holding that the trial had not yet commenced and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, noting that the amendment was necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. The court observed that the respondents had explained the delay by stating that the plea of set-off arose from a subsequent event. The court also noted that the petitioner would have an opportunity to file a rejoinder and lead evidence to meet the new plea. The court held that any prejudice could be compensated by costs, and therefore, the amendment was permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The writ petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Set-off - The court considered whether an amendment to the written statement introducing a plea of set-off could be allowed after seven years of filing the written statement. The trial had not commenced and issues were not framed. The court held that since the trial had not begun, the amendment could be allowed as no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs. The court emphasized that the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. (Paras 4-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether the respondents had exercised due diligence in seeking the amendment. The court found that the respondents had explained the delay by stating that the plea of set-off was based on a subsequent event, i.e., the filing of a recovery suit by the respondents against the petitioner. The court accepted this explanation and held that the amendment was sought in good faith. (Paras 7-9) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Prejudice - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner would have an opportunity to meet the new plea by filing a rejoinder and leading evidence. The court held that any prejudice could be compensated by costs, and therefore, the amendment was allowed. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment of written statement seeking to introduce a plea of set-off after seven years of filing the written statement should be allowed when the trial has not yet commenced and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the written statement. The court directed the trial court to expedite the suit.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Set-off
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Prejudice
- Trial commencement
- Due diligence
