Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (CIDCO), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 4th April 2016 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, which allowed the respondent-plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint. The original suit was filed on 13th March 2002 by the respondent (M/s Preet Sonal Investments & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. and its director) against CIDCO seeking a declaration of unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, along with damages and other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, CIDCO passed a resolution in 2009 concerning the plot that was the subject matter of the suit. The resolution allegedly contained a condition that the plaintiff must withdraw the suit unconditionally. Based on this resolution, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for a decree on admission. CIDCO opposed that application, arguing that there was no pleading in the original plaint regarding the resolution. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the resolution and consequential reliefs. The trial court allowed the amendment, holding that it was necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the case and that no prejudice would be caused to CIDCO since the resolution was passed by CIDCO itself. Aggrieved, CIDCO filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order. The court noted that the amendment was based on a subsequent event (the resolution) and was relevant for the plaintiff's claim for a decree on admission. The court also observed that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and that CIDCO would have an opportunity to contest the amended plaint. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Subsequent Events - The plaintiff sought amendment to bring on record a resolution passed by the defendant during pendency of suit, which allegedly contained admissions regarding re-allotment of plot and withdrawal of suit - The trial court allowed the amendment - Held that amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and did not cause prejudice to defendant as it was based on defendant's own resolution (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate a subsequent resolution passed by the defendant, which was relevant for the plaintiff's claim for decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- subsequent events
- admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
- unfair trade practice
- Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act
