Case Note & Summary
The present petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were filed by the original plaintiffs (petitioners) challenging the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in Special Civil Suit No. 76 of 2004, whereby the trial court rejected the plaintiffs' applications at Exhibits 136 and 137 seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The plaintiffs sought to add a new property (a piece of land) and to revise the valuation of the suit properties based on a subsequent valuation report. The trial court rejected the applications on the grounds that the amendments would change the nature of the suit, introduce a new cause of action, and that the plaintiffs had not shown due diligence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court's approach was erroneous. The court observed that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action because the suit remained one for partition; adding a property merely expanded the scope. The court also noted that the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 must be applied flexibly, and in partition suits, subsequent discovery of properties or changes in valuation are not uncommon. The court emphasized that amendments which are necessary for the determination of the real controversy should be liberally allowed. Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment applications, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit after incorporating the amendments. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendments which do not introduce a new cause of action and are necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties must be liberally allowed, even if they change the valuation or add a new property, as long as the basic character of the suit remains the same. The trial court's rejection on grounds of delay and change in nature was set aside. (Paras 1-16) B) Civil Procedure - Due Diligence - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court observed that the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is not an absolute bar and must be applied flexibly; in partition suits, subsequent discovery of properties or changes in valuation are common and cannot be attributed to lack of diligence. (Paras 10-12) C) Partition Suit - Amendment - Addition of Property - The court clarified that adding a new property in a partition suit does not introduce a new cause of action because the cause of action for partition is the jointness of title and possession, which remains unchanged. The amendment only expands the scope of the suit. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to add a new property and change the valuation of the suit, on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit and introduce a new cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both petitions, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2019, and allowed the amendment applications (Exhibits 136 and 137). The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit after incorporating the amendments. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- liberal approach
- no new cause of action
- change in valuation
- partition suit
- delay not fatal
- due diligence
