Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Gopalan Puthanpure, challenged an order dated 21/06/2017 passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No. 186/2010, which allowed the respondent/plaintiff Jyoti Anil Shah to amend her plaint. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The plaintiff sought to add paragraphs 11A to 11E to the plaint, alleging that the defendant was a Director of Akshay Automobile Private Limited (started on 10/06/2005) and Vijayalaxmi Automobiles Private Limited, and that the defendant had other business interests, which were relevant to the issue of comparative hardship. The petitioner argued that the amendment was an afterthought, that the plaintiff's evidence had already concluded, and that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requiring due diligence was not satisfied. The respondent contended that the information was not within her knowledge earlier and that the defendant had suppressed these facts in his written statement. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, noting that the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy and that the plaintiff had shown due diligence. The Court observed that the trial had not commenced as the defendant had not yet led evidence, and therefore the amendment could be allowed. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to incorporate details of the defendant's business and comparative hardship after her evidence was recorded. The Court held that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy and that the plaintiff had shown due diligence as the information was not within her knowledge earlier. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Stage of Amendment - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The amendment was sought after the plaintiff's evidence concluded but before the defendant's evidence began. The Court held that the trial had not commenced as the defendant had not yet led evidence, and therefore the amendment could be allowed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after the plaintiff's evidence had concluded, and whether the proviso requiring 'due diligence' was satisfied.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- due diligence
- bonafide requirement
- comparative hardship
- eviction suit
