Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement to Correct Inadvertent Omissions in Civil Suit. Petitioners' Application for Amendment Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC Allowed as Omissions Were Formal and Did Not Change the Tenor of the Written Statement.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 96
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 2012, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the trial court rejecting their application (Exh.32) for amendment of the written statement. The petitioners contended that certain words of denial of averments made in the plaint were inadvertently omitted from the written statement and sought to incorporate them. The High Court observed that the omissions were inadvertent and the amendment was formal in nature. Considering the overall tenor of the written statement, the court held that the trial court should have allowed the amendment. The High Court quashed the impugned order, allowed the amendment application, and directed the petitioners to carry out the necessary amendment within two weeks from the date of first appearance before the trial court. The parties were directed to appear on 07.09.2016. No order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Inadvertent Omission - Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioners sought to amend their written statement to incorporate words of denial of certain averments in the plaint which were inadvertently omitted. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that the amendment was formal and necessary to correct inadvertent omissions, and the trial court should have allowed it considering the tone and tenor of the written statement. The order was quashed and the amendment allowed. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement seeking to incorporate inadvertent omissions of denial of certain averments in the plaint.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.08.2014 passed below Exh.32 in Regular Civil Suit No. 168/2012 is quashed and set aside. The application Exh.32 is allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties before the trial Court. Parties to appear on 07.09.2016. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Inadvertent omission
  • Liberal approach
  • Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 175

Writ Petition No. 5760 of 2014

2016-08-22

R. K. Deshpande

Shri H.I.Kothari for Petitioners, Shri D.G.Paunikar for Respondent no. 2

Shree Ganesh Housing Agency and Ashok s/o Anandrao Dhopodkar

Udaram Laxman Divekar and Harishchandra s/o Chaitram Khumbhare

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging rejection of amendment application in a regular civil suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 12.08.2014 rejecting their application for amendment of written statement and to allow the amendment.

Filing Reason

The petitioners' application for amendment of written statement to incorporate inadvertent omissions of denial of certain averments was rejected by the trial court.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed order dated 12.08.2014 below Exh.32 in Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 2012 rejecting the amendment application.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application for written statement seeking to correct inadvertent omissions.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the omissions were inadvertent and formal, and the amendment should have been allowed considering the tenor of the written statement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court should allow amendment of written statement to correct inadvertent omissions, especially when the amendment is formal and does not change the tone and tenor of the written statement.

Judgment Excerpts

The Court should have allowed that amendment, keeping in view the tone and tenor of the written statement filed by the petitioners. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 2012. They filed written statement. Subsequently, they filed application Exh.32 for amendment of written statement. The trial court rejected the application on 12.08.2014. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition on 24.11.2014. Notices were issued and parties served. Respondent no.1 did not appear. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 22.08.2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Charges Against Accused in SC/ST Act Case for Lack of Sanction — Proceedings Initiated Without Mandatory Sanction Under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Are Void Ab Initio.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Petitions Challenging Demolition of Illegal Structures on Government Land Under Section 53A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1966. Petitioners failed to establish title or lawful possession over the structures ...