Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendants in a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession, challenged the trial court's order dated 27/06/2016 rejecting their application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The suit was originally decreed on 22/10/2010 granting 1/3rd share to each party. On appeal, the Principal District Judge, Bhandara, set aside the decree on 13/04/2015 on the ground that the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and remanded the matter for fresh decision after affording opportunity to plaintiffs to make proper valuation and pay requisite court fee. After remand, the defendants filed an amendment application (Exh.97) seeking to incorporate two contentions: (i) regarding valuation of the suit property and court fee, and (ii) regarding limitation. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment was sought belatedly and lacked bona fides. The High Court held that the trial court's approach was erroneous. It observed that after remand, the suit was at a pre-trial stage and no evidence had been recorded. The amendment was necessary to clarify the defendants' stand on valuation and limitation, which were crucial issues after the remand order. The court emphasized that amendments before trial should be liberally allowed unless they cause irreparable prejudice or are mala fide. The respondents/plaintiffs could be compensated by costs. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendments before trial should be liberally allowed unless they cause irreparable prejudice or are mala fide. The trial court's rejection on grounds of delay was improper as the suit was still at pre-trial stage after remand. (Paras 6-8) B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Effect on Stage of Suit - After remand, the suit is restored to its original stage, and parties are entitled to amend pleadings. The appellate court's remand order did not restrict amendment. (Paras 4-5) C) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Valuation - The appellate court had set aside the decree for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and remanded the suit for fresh decision after proper valuation. The amendment sought to incorporate facts relevant to valuation and limitation. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after remand, on grounds of delay and lack of bona fides.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 27/06/2016, and permitted the petitioners to amend the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Liberal approach
- Pre-trial amendment
- Remand
- Pecuniary jurisdiction
- Delay
- Prejudice
