Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Shantabai Thakre, filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition, and separate possession against her two step-brothers, Vasant and Ramesh Wankhede, claiming a 1/3rd share in the ancestral property left by her father Shamrao, who died in 1991. Shamrao had two wives; the petitioner was born from the first wife, and the respondents from the second. The petitioner alleged that her step-brothers suppressed her rights and played foul play to exclude her from the property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act and obtained certain documents that she believed were material to her case. She then filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to amend the plaint to incorporate these facts. By the time the amendment application was decided, the trial had commenced: the petitioner's examination-in-chief and cross-examination had been recorded, and the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW1. The trial court rejected the amendment application, holding that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC barred the amendment since trial had commenced and the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for not bringing the facts earlier. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's order. The Court held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not create an absolute bar; it only restricts amendments after trial has commenced unless the party satisfies the court that despite due diligence, the facts could not have been brought earlier. In this case, the petitioner had obtained the information through RTI after the trial had started, which constituted sufficient cause. The Court emphasized that amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The trial court was directed to allow the amendment and proceed with the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Proviso - Due Diligence - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's amendment application on the ground that trial had commenced, but the High Court held that the proviso does not bar amendment if the party shows that despite due diligence, the facts could not be brought earlier. The plaintiff had obtained information through RTI after commencement of trial, which constituted sufficient cause. The amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. (Paras 2-5) B) Partition Suit - Daughter's Share - Ancestral Property - The plaintiff, a daughter, sought amendment to include details of ancestral property acquired through RTI, to claim her 1/3rd share. The High Court allowed the amendment, observing that technicalities should not defeat the substantive rights of parties. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground that trial had commenced, despite the plaintiff's claim of due diligence and discovery of new facts through RTI.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 25.6.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 2008, and directed the trial court to allow the amendment application and proceed with the suit.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- proviso bar
- due diligence
- liberal construction
- partition suit
- ancestral property
- right to information
