Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.667 of 2009 pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Akola, challenged the order dated 22.10.2013 rejecting their application for amendment of the written statement. The suit was instituted on 14.10.2009 by the respondents/plaintiffs. The defendants filed their written statement on 8.2.2010. Issues were framed on 22.6.2011, and the plaintiffs' examination-in-chief was filed on 12.7.2010. On 21.8.2013, the defendants moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The plaintiffs opposed the application, contending that it was belated and an afterthought, and that the proposed amendment was merely a replica of the earlier written statement. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court held that since the trial had not yet commenced (only issues framed and examination-in-chief filed), the amendment was pre-trial and should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy. The court noted that the amendment sought to incorporate additional facts regarding possession and title, which did not change the nature of the suit. The court further observed that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs that could not be compensated by costs. The impugned order was set aside, and the amendment application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - Pre-trial Amendment - The court held that since the trial had not yet commenced (only issues framed and examination-in-chief filed), the amendment sought was pre-trial and should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties. The trial court's rejection on grounds of delay and the amendment being a replica was erroneous. (Paras 4-6) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Due Diligence - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court observed that the amendment was not an afterthought but sought to incorporate additional facts regarding possession and title. The defendants had shown sufficient cause for the amendment, and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs that could not be compensated by costs. (Paras 4-6) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Amendment - Replica of Earlier Pleading - The court noted that even if the amendment was a replica, it would not be a ground for rejection if it helped in clarifying the defence. The trial court's reasoning that the amendment was a replica was not sustainable. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on the ground that it was belated and a replica of the earlier written statement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2013, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Liberal approach
- Pre-trial amendment
- Due diligence
- Replica of earlier pleading
- Change in nature of suit
- Prejudice to opposite party
