Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vitthal Mhaskuy Mandhre, filed a suit for specific performance and injunction against the respondents, Mugutrao Vishnu Sanas (since deceased through legal heirs), in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune. The suit was instituted in 2010. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 24 March 2017, seeking to correct the description of the northern and southern boundaries of the suit property. The amendment was to change the southern boundary from 'property of Bhelke' to 'part of property No. 88/8B1 Kothrud and then the property of Mr. Bhelke', and the northern boundary from 'lane of Mr. Sonawane and Kulkarni' to 'lane and property of Mr. Sonawane and Kulkarni'. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the trial had already commenced and the petitioner was not diligent, as the application was made six and a half years after the suit was filed. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court observed that the amendment was only to clarify the boundaries and was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. The court noted that the respondents had raised the issue of incorrect description in their written statement, but the petitioner had not taken steps earlier. However, the court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and would not cause any prejudice to the respondents that could not be compensated by costs. The court allowed the petition, set aside the trial court's order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Correction of Property Description - The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to correct the northern and southern boundaries of the suit property, which was a minor clarification. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that trial had commenced and the petitioner was not diligent. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication and did not cause prejudice to the respondents. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the trial court's order, and directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint seeking to correct the description of suit property boundaries, on the ground that the trial had commenced and the petitioner was not diligent.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 24 March 2017, and permitted the petitioner to carry out the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- liberal approach to amendment
- commencement of trial
- diligence of party
- prejudice to opposite party
