Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from three writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in two connected civil suits. The petitioners are Mr. A. Ashraf Ali and M/s Brigade Properties, who are defendants in O.S. No. 5539/2013 and O.S. No. 4465/2013 respectively. The respondent in the first petition is Smt. B.S. Susheela Devi, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5539/2013, and in the other petitions, the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Garud S. Acharya. The suits relate to property disputes: O.S. No. 5539/2013 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by Susheela Devi against Ashraf Ali, and O.S. No. 4465/2013 is a suit for declaration and injunction filed by Garud S. Acharya against Brigade Properties. In O.S. No. 5539/2013, the trial court allowed I.A. No. 8 filed by the defendant (Ashraf Ali) seeking amendment of his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. In O.S. No. 4465/2013, the trial court allowed I.A. No. 1/2017 filed by the plaintiff (Garud S. Acharya) seeking impleadment of certain parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The petitioners challenged these orders on the ground that the amendments and impleadment were not necessary and would cause prejudice. The High Court examined the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and held that pre-trial amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties. The court noted that the amendment sought by Ashraf Ali did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary to incorporate additional facts. Regarding impleadment, the court held that the persons sought to be impleaded had a direct interest in the property and their presence was necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The court further held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and should not be exercised to interfere with discretionary orders passed by the trial court unless there is a patent illegality or perversity. Finding no such error, the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, upholding the trial court's orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial Amendment - Liberal Approach - The trial court allowed amendment of written statement before commencement of trial. The High Court held that pre-trial amendments are to be liberally allowed unless they cause irreparable prejudice to the opposite party. The amendment sought to incorporate additional facts and defences, which did not change the nature of the suit. (Paras 5-7) B) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary Party - The trial court allowed impleadment of a person claiming interest in the suit property. The High Court held that a person whose interest may be affected by the decree is a necessary party and should be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 8-9) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution - Scope of Interference - The High Court held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and should not be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or law unless the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction or in flagrant disregard of law. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing applications for amendment of written statement and impleadment under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 CPC, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
All three writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders of the trial court dated 02.01.2018 and 13.07.2017 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Liberal approach to amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Pre-trial amendments
- No prejudice to opposite party
- Suit for specific performance
- Suit for declaration and injunction
