Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s K.T. Kubal & Company, a tenant, challenged the order of the Small Causes Court allowing the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint in an eviction suit. The respondent had filed the suit for recovery of possession of an open space admeasuring 4,000 sq. ft. on the ground of nuisance and encroachment. The petitioner in its written statement denied being a tenant of the open space, claiming tenancy only of a factory shed. The respondent sought to amend the plaint to clarify the description of the suit property and to add alternative grounds. The trial court allowed the amendment. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, held that since issues had not been framed and the suit was at a pre-trial stage, the amendment should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy. The court found no prejudice to the petitioner as the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and the petitioner would have opportunity to file additional written statement. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Stage - The court considered whether amendment of plaint should be allowed when issues have not been framed and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party - Held that at pre-trial stage, amendments should be liberally allowed to determine real controversy between parties - The trial court's order allowing amendment was upheld as no prejudice was shown (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when the suit was at a pre-trial stage and no prejudice was caused to the defendant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing amendment of plaint.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Pre-trial stage
- Liberal approach
- No prejudice
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (10) 55
WRIT PETITION NO.11951 OF 2013
Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.
Mr. N.V. Walavalkar, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. S.M. Sabrad for Petitioner; Mr. G.S. Godbole i/by Mr. B.P. Pandey for Respondent
Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging order allowing amendment of plaint in eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the trial court's order dated 16th December 2013 allowing amendment of plaint.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the amendment changed the nature of the suit and caused prejudice.
Previous Decisions
Trial court allowed amendment of plaint on 16th December 2013.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when the suit was at a pre-trial stage and no prejudice was caused to the defendant.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment changed the nature of the suit and caused prejudice.
Respondent argued that the amendment was necessary to clarify the property description and was at pre-trial stage, causing no prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
At pre-trial stage, amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between parties, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party which cannot be compensated by costs.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that falls for consideration of the court in this petition is of interpretation of Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure.
The case set out by the respondent in his eviction suit is that he is the owner of the building...
The petitioner filed written statement dtd. 23rd July, 2012.
Procedural History
Respondent filed eviction suit in Small Causes Court. Petitioner filed written statement. Respondent applied for amendment of plaint. Trial court allowed amendment on 16th December 2013. Petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
