Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original plaintiff, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their amendment application by the District Court. The original plaintiff had filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming ownership of the suit property based on a sale deed dated 14th August 1989, alleging that the defendant was interfering with his possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. During the appeal before the District Court, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to amend the plaint to seek a declaration that the sale deed was nominal, sham, and bogus, representing a money lending transaction. The District Court rejected the application on two grounds: first, that the issue of the sham nature of the sale was already decided against the plaintiff by the trial court, and second, that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the amendment was necessary for the proper determination of the real controversy between the parties. The court noted that the plaintiff's case throughout was that the sale deed was nominal, and the amendment merely sought to formalize that claim. The High Court also observed that the trial court's finding on the issue was not final and could be reconsidered in appeal. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the District Court's order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Appellate Stage - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add a declaration that the sale deed was nominal, sham, and bogus, representing a money lending transaction. The District Court rejected the application on grounds that the issue was already decided against the plaintiff and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy and did not change the nature of the suit, as the plaintiff's case was always that the sale deed was nominal. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the District Court's order. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage to seek a declaration that the sale deed was sham and bogus.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the District Court's order dated 30th August 2016, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint at appellate stage
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- sham transaction
- nominal sale deed
- money lending transaction
- perpetual injunction
- declaration of title
