Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anilkumar Shrivallabh Sikchi, filed a civil suit against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (respondent no.1) and M/s S.D. Asoriya (respondent no.2) seeking ejectment, possession, and damages. The respondent no.2 is a partnership firm. Initially, the written statement was filed in 2003 by Sanktaprasad Dwarkaprasad Asoriya. Subsequently, the plaint was amended, and defendant nos. 2A, 2B, and 2C were impleaded as partners. They filed a written statement in September 2008. Defendant no.2C died on 10th January 2011, and defendant no.2(C1) was brought on record on 4th April 2013. Defendant no.2(D) was also brought on record on the same date. On 21st August 2013, defendant nos. 2(C1) and 2(D) filed a pursis adopting the written statement of defendant no.2(C). On 27th November 2013, defendant nos. 2, 2A, 2B, and 2C filed an application (Exh.126) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement. The trial court allowed the application. The plaintiff challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that since the trial had not commenced, the amendment should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy. The court noted that the amendment did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs. The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Pre-trial amendment - The defendants sought to amend the written statement to clarify the defence of tenancy and possession. The trial court allowed the amendment. The High Court upheld the order, holding that since the trial had not commenced, the amendment should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, and no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC when the trial had not commenced and no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the written statement.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Pre-trial amendment
- Liberal approach
- No prejudice
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (01) 128
WRIT PETITION NO. 1834 OF 2014
Shri J.J.Chandurkar for Petitioner, Shri Abhay Sambre for Respondent No.1, Shri R.M.Bhangde for Respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(d)
Anilkumar Shrivallabh Sikchi
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, M/s. S.D. Asoriya and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for ejectment, possession and damages
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/plaintiff sought to challenge the order allowing amendment of written statement
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the defendants' application to amend the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the amendment application (Exh.126) by the impugned order
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC when the trial had not commenced and no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/plaintiff argued that the amendment should not have been allowed as it would prejudice the plaintiff.
Defendants/respondents argued that the amendment was necessary to clarify the defence and no prejudice would be caused.
Ratio Decidendi
Since the trial had not commenced, the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, and no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff has filed this petition to assail the order passed by the trial Court by which the application (Exh.126) filed by the defendant Nos. 2, 2A to 2C1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the written statement is allowed.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for ejectment, possession and damages. Written statement was filed in 2003. Plaint was amended and new defendants were impleaded. They filed written statement in September 2008. Defendant no.2C died in 2011, and defendant no.2(C1) and 2(D) were brought on record in 2013. On 27th November 2013, the defendants filed an application for amendment of written statement, which was allowed by the trial court. The plaintiff challenged this order by writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 17
