Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement and Counter Claim in Civil Suit — Petitioner Granted Leave to Amend Pleadings Based on Court Commissioner's Report. Amendment Sought to Incorporate Encroachment Findings from T.I.L.R. Report Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 137
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Girish Bhor, was the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 176 of 2008 filed by the respondent, Ambadas Perne, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri. The suit pertained to land disputes. Upon institution of the suit, the petitioner filed his written statement along with a counter claim on 05-07-2008. In the written statement and counter claim, the petitioner specifically reserved a right to amend the pleadings in the event a T.I.L.R. (Taluka Inspector of Land Records) was appointed and his report revealed encroachment by the plaintiff on the defendant's land. The respondent/plaintiff had himself filed an application Exhibit 7 dated 02-05-2008 seeking appointment of a T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for measurement of suit properties and fixing boundaries. The petitioner filed his reply at Exhibit 16 on 05-07-2008, reiterating that the Commissioner should mention any encroachment by the plaintiff. The T.I.L.R. was appointed by order dated 12-09-2008 and submitted his report on 16-07-2009 along with a map. Based on the Commissioner's report, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 10-07-2014 seeking amendment of the written statement and counter claim to incorporate the encroachment findings. The trial court rejected the application by impugned order dated 10-07-2014, holding that the petitioner had not reserved any right to amend. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined the pleadings and found that the reservation was clearly made in prayer clause 6-B of the written statement and counter claim. The Court held that the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application. The impugned order was set aside, and the amendment application was allowed. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement and counter claim within four weeks, and the respondent was granted liberty to file an additional written statement to the counter claim within four weeks thereafter. The suit was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Reservation of Right to Amend - The petitioner/defendant had reserved a right to amend the written statement and counter claim in the event a T.I.L.R. was appointed and its report revealed encroachment by the plaintiff. The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that the petitioner had not reserved such right. The High Court held that the reservation was clear from the pleadings and the amendment was necessary to incorporate the findings of the Commissioner's report. The impugned order was set aside and the amendment was allowed. (Paras 3-8)

B) Civil Procedure - Court Commissioner - Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC - T.I.L.R. Report - The plaintiff himself had moved an application for appointment of a T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner. The defendant in his reply sought that the Commissioner report any encroachment by the plaintiff. The Commissioner's report indicated encroachment. The High Court held that the amendment based on such report was essential for effective adjudication of the suit. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the written statement and counter claim based on the report of the Court Commissioner (T.I.L.R.).

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order dated 10-07-2014 is set aside. The application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement and counter claim within four weeks. The respondent may file an additional written statement to the counter claim within four weeks thereafter. The suit is directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

Law Points

  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Order VI Rule 17 CPC
  • Court Commissioner's report
  • Encroachment
  • Counter claim
  • Written statement
  • Reservation of right to amend
  • T.I.L.R. report
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 15

Writ Petition No. 6715 of 2014

2014-12-01

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Mr. R.R. Karpe for petitioner, Mr. S.P. Brahme for respondent

Girish S/o Bapusaheb Bhor

Ambadas S/o Chandrabhan Perne

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging rejection of amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to amend written statement and counter claim based on T.I.L.R. report.

Filing Reason

Trial court rejected amendment application on ground that petitioner had not reserved right to amend.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected amendment application by order dated 10-07-2014.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC? Whether the petitioner had reserved a right to amend the pleadings based on the T.I.L.R. report?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he had reserved a right to amend in prayer clause 6-B of the written statement and counter claim. Respondent opposed the amendment, but the High Court found the reservation clear.

Ratio Decidendi

A party who has reserved a right to amend pleadings based on a future event, such as a Commissioner's report, is entitled to seek amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when that event occurs. The amendment is necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has raised a grievance on account of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having been rejected by the impugned order dated 10-07-2014. The petitioner is the original defendant in R.C.S. No. 176 of 2008. Upon the institution of the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement along with a counter claim on 05-07-2008. Prayers made in the written statement and the counter claim indicate that the petitioner had reserved a right to amend the written statement and the counter claim, in the event a T.I.L.R. is appointed and pursuant to the local inspection carried out by the T.I.L.R., it is revealed that the respondent/ plaintiff has encroached upon the land of the petitioner/ defendant.

Procedural History

The respondent/plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 176 of 2008. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement and counter claim on 05-07-2008. The T.I.L.R. was appointed on 12-09-2008 and submitted report on 16-07-2009. The petitioner filed amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 10-07-2014, which was rejected by the trial court on the same day. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17, Order XXVI Rule 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement and Counter Claim in Civil Suit — Petitioner Granted Leave to Amend Pleadings Based on Court Commissioner's Report. Amendment Sought to Incorporate Encroachment Findings from T.I.L.R. Report U...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Appeal in Property Dispute — Petitioner Challenges Order Allowing Amendment of Counter Claim Grounds. Court Holds That Amendment Seeking to Add Grounds Regarding Dismissal of Counter Claims Does Not Introduce N...