Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Archana Ashok Amburle, filed a Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2012 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dapoli, seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of a house and toilet constructed on her suit property. She claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 1st April 2009. The defendants (respondents) filed a written statement denying her claim and asserting possession by their father. After the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (Exhibit-71) seeking amendment of the plaint to add a relief of possession, and another application (Exhibit-77) for recasting of issue no.1. The trial court rejected both applications. The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy and did not cause injustice to the defendants, as they could file additional written statements. The court also held that the trial court had power to recast issues at any stage before judgment under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were allowed. The defendants were granted liberty to file additional written statements, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment sought to add relief of possession after trial had commenced - Court held that amendment is necessary for determination of real controversy and does not cause injustice to defendants - Held that trial court's rejection was premature and contrary to law (Paras 4-6). B) Civil Procedure - Recasting of Issues - Order XIV Rule 5 CPC - Application for recasting of issue no.1 - Court held that trial court has power to amend issues at any stage before judgment - Held that rejection of recasting application was erroneous (Paras 7-8). C) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction - Interference with interlocutory orders - Court held that impugned orders suffered from patent error and failure to exercise jurisdiction - Held that petition under Article 227 is maintainable (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and for recasting of issues under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 25th April 2018 and 10th July 2018, and allowed the applications Exhibit-71 and Exhibit-77. The respondents were granted liberty to file additional written statements within four weeks. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- recasting of issues
- Order XIV Rule 5 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- power of High Court to interfere with interlocutory orders
