Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant No.1 in the original suit, challenged the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, rejecting I.A. No.13 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, and for rendition of accounts. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to incorporate certain clarifications regarding the properties and the relief sought. The trial court rejected the application on the grounds that it was filed belatedly and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, in its analysis, observed that the amendment was sought to clarify the existing pleadings and did not introduce a new case. The court emphasized that amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, and delay alone is not a sufficient ground for rejection unless it causes irreparable prejudice to the opposite party. The court found that the trial court had not considered whether the amendment would cause any prejudice to the defendants that could not be compensated by costs. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application, directing the plaintiff to carry out the amendment within two weeks and the defendants to file additional written statements within four weeks thereafter. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between parties, and delay alone is not a ground for rejection unless it causes irreparable prejudice to the opposite party. The trial court erred in rejecting the amendment solely on the ground of delay and that it would change the nature of the suit, as the proposed amendment sought to clarify the existing pleadings and did not introduce a new case. (Paras 4-8) B) Civil Procedure - Change of Nature of Suit - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court clarified that an amendment which does not alter the fundamental character of the suit but merely clarifies or adds to the existing pleadings is permissible. The trial court's finding that the amendment would change the nature of the suit was not supported by the record, as the plaintiff's claim for partition remained the same. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the grounds of delay and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2013, and allowed I.A. No.13 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The plaintiff was directed to carry out the amendment within two weeks, and the defendants were given four weeks to file additional written statements. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- liberal approach
- delay not sole ground
- change of nature of suit
- prejudice to opposite party
- due diligence
