Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging an order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirur, dated 30th June 2016, which rejected their application for amendment of the written statement. The suit was filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) seeking a declaration that they were the owners of certain agricultural land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The defendants, in their written statement, claimed that the suit property was ancestral and that there was a family arrangement among the co-sharers. They later sought to amend the written statement to incorporate specific details of the family arrangement and to add a counterclaim for partition and separate possession. The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that it would change the nature of the defence and that the counterclaim was barred by limitation. The High Court examined the maintainability of the revision application and held that an order refusing amendment of pleadings is a 'case decided' under Section 115 CPC and is revisable if it is not appealable and causes failure of justice. On merits, the court observed that the amendment sought to incorporate a family arrangement, which is a valid mode of settlement of disputes among family members, and that the counterclaim arose out of the same transaction. The court held that the trial court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity by rejecting the amendment, as it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and help in determining the real controversy between the parties. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to allow the amendment application and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Maintainability of Revision - Order refusing amendment of written statement is a 'case decided' and revision lies if the order is not appealable and causes failure of justice - Held that the impugned order refusing amendment was revisable as it disposed of a substantive right of the petitioners to put forth their defence and counterclaim (Paras 5-7). B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - Amendment sought to incorporate a family arrangement and counterclaim - Amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine real controversy - Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment as it was necessary for effective adjudication (Paras 8-12). C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 6A - Counterclaim - Defendant can set up a counterclaim arising out of the same transaction or relating to the same property - Held that the counterclaim based on family arrangement was maintainable and should have been allowed (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Revision Application is maintainable against an order refusing amendment of written statement, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment seeking to incorporate a family arrangement and counterclaim.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the impugned order dated 30th June 2016, and directed the trial court to allow the amendment application and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Maintainability of Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC
- Amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Family arrangement as a valid defence
- Counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC
- Multiplicity of proceedings
