Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2008 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karanja Lad, District Washim, filed a suit for partition, separate possession and mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, before commencement of evidence, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate necessary pleadings so that appropriate issues could be framed and the defendants would be put to proper notice. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff had sought amendment previously also and that allowing the amendment would cause delay. The plaintiff challenged this order by way of writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court observed that the suit was at the pre-trial stage and no evidence had commenced. The court held that the trial court's approach was too technical and that amendment of pleadings at a pre-trial stage should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the defendants. The court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Stage - The plaintiff sought amendment of plaint in a partition suit before commencement of evidence. The trial court rejected it citing previous amendment and delay. The High Court held that at the pre-trial stage, amendment should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real question in controversy. The impugned order was set aside and the amendment application was allowed with costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the defendants. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint on the ground of delay and previous amendment, when the suit was at the pre-trial stage and no evidence had commenced.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the defendants. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Liberal approach to amendment
- Avoid multiplicity of proceedings
- Real question in controversy
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Pre-trial stage amendment
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 92
Writ Petition No.1606 of 2014
Mr. A.M. Tirukh for the Petitioner; None for the respondents
Kantabai @ Kanhopatra @ Chandrabhaga w/o. Madhukarappa Dahake
Kashinath Gangaram Ghate and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting amendment of plaint in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (original plaintiff) sought to amend the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2008 for partition, separate possession and mesne profits.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground of previous amendment and likely delay.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the amendment application with costs of Rs.1000/-.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application at the pre-trial stage.
Whether the amendment was necessary to determine the real question in controversy.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary to incorporate pleadings so that appropriate issues could be framed and defendants put to proper notice.
Respondents opposed the amendment on the ground that the plaintiff had sought amendment previously and it would cause delay.
Ratio Decidendi
Amendment of pleadings at a pre-trial stage should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The trial court's approach was too technical and the order rejecting the amendment was unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the grievance of the petitioner (original plaintiff) in Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2008 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karanja Lad, District Washim that commencement of evidence has not yet been fixed in the pending suit while pleadings were being completed.
The learned trial Judge considered mere opposition to the application for amendment in the plaint and on the ground that the plaintiff has sought amendment previously also, felt that there was no necessity to permit amendment and rejected the application with cost of Rs.1000/.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2008 for partition, separate possession and mesne profits. Before commencement of evidence, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. The trial court rejected the application with costs of Rs.1000/-. The plaintiff challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.1606 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
