Case Note & Summary
The present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 2010 pending before the 4th Senior Civil Court, Porbandar. The suit was filed for specific performance of a contract. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application at Ex. 68 seeking to implead Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (government officers) as defendants and to amend the plaint to incorporate allegations of fraud and collusion against them. The Trial Court, by order dated 03/09/2024, rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the High Court. The High Court examined the impugned order and the submissions of the parties. The Court observed that the suit was at the pre-trial stage and no issues had been framed. The proposed amendment sought to add necessary parties and clarify the cause of action, which would help in the complete adjudication of the dispute. The Court held that the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the application as the amendment did not change the nature of the suit but only sought to bring on record the real controversy. Relying on the principles of liberal amendment at pre-trial stage, the High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the amendment application. The Court directed the Trial Court to permit the plaintiffs to implead the proposed defendants and amend the plaint within four weeks. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Impleadment of Necessary Parties - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioners-plaintiffs sought to implead two government officers as defendants and amend the plaint to incorporate allegations of fraud and collusion against them in a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court held that at the pre-trial stage, amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to determine the real controversy between the parties. The Court found that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit but only added necessary parties and clarified the cause of action. The impugned order was quashed and the amendment was allowed. (Paras 1-8) B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an error of law committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the amendment application. The Court noted that the Trial Court's order was perverse and suffered from material irregularity, warranting interference under Article 227. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint seeking to implead necessary parties and amend the plaint accordingly, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 03/09/2024, and directed the Trial Court to permit the petitioners to implead Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as defendants and to amend the plaint accordingly within four weeks.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Impleadment of necessary parties
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Liberal approach to amendment
- Pre-trial stage amendment
- No prejudice to opposite party
