Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises out of a Chamber Summons filed by the defendant in a pending suit for possession and mesne profits. The plaintiff, Banganga Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., filed Suit No. 1373 of 1992 against the defendant, Mrs. Vasanti Gajanan Nerurkar, seeking possession of the suit premises and mesne profits. The defendant filed her written statement in 1993. After 22 years, in 2014, the defendant filed Chamber Summons (L) No. 1678 of 2014 seeking to amend her written statement to introduce a new defence of title by adverse possession. The trial had already commenced and evidence was closed. The plaintiff opposed the amendment on grounds of delay, lack of due diligence, and prejudice. The court examined the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which prohibits amendment after trial has commenced unless the party shows that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate any due diligence and that the amendment was not necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. The court also noted that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff and would delay the trial further. Consequently, the court dismissed the chamber summons with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment after commencement of trial - The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The court held that the defendant failed to show due diligence and the amendment sought was not necessary for determining the real controversy. (Paras 1-26) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Delay and Prejudice - The amendment sought to introduce a new defence of title by adverse possession after 22 years and after evidence was closed. The court held that such amendment would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff and would change the nature of the defence. (Paras 10-26) C) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Order 20 Rule 12 CPC - The court noted that the suit for possession and mesne profits was pending since 1992 and the amendment would further delay the trial. The court dismissed the chamber summons with costs of Rs. 25,000. (Paras 1-26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to the written statement sought after 22 years and after evidence was closed should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Chamber Summons is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- delay and laches
- prejudice to opposite party
- after commencement of trial
- due diligence
- real controversy
