Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants regarding a wall on the southern side of the schedule property. The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 09.03.2016. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application (I.A. No. 6) seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the fact that after the rejection of temporary injunction, the defendants demolished the wall on 16.03.2016, and to add prayers for declaration regarding the wall and mandatory injunction for its reconstruction. The trial court rejected this amendment application on 05.04.2018 on the ground that the plaintiff had not challenged the order rejecting temporary injunction. The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the impugned order, holding that the right to seek amendment of pleadings is not dependent on challenging an earlier interlocutory order. The court observed that the trial court's reasoning was strange and unsustainable. The amendment was necessary to bring on record subsequent events and to enable the court to effectively adjudicate the dispute. The High Court allowed the writ petition and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Right to Amend - The right to seek amendment of pleadings is not dependent on challenging an earlier interlocutory order rejecting temporary injunction. The trial court's rejection of the amendment application on the ground that the plaintiff had not challenged the order rejecting temporary injunction was held to be unsustainable. (Paras 1-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Subsequent Events - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to incorporate the fact that after rejection of temporary injunction, the defendants demolished the wall in question, and to add prayers for declaration and mandatory injunction for reconstruction. The High Court held that such amendment is necessary for effective adjudication and allowed the amendment. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of an application for temporary injunction bars the plaintiff from seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and additional reliefs?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2018, and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint as sought in I.A. No. 6.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is a matter of right and not dependent on challenging an earlier interlocutory order
- Rejection of temporary injunction does not bar amendment to incorporate subsequent events and additional reliefs
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (08) 39
Writ Petition No. 17402 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice
Sri K.N. Nithish, Advocate for Sri K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate (for petitioner); Sri Vishwanath Sabarad, Advocate (for respondents)
Smt G Manjula, G. Vanjakshi, Smt G. Sheela
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the trial court's order rejecting amendment of plaint in a suit for perpetual injunction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 4014 of 2015, and to allow the amendment of the plaint.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events (demolition of wall after rejection of temporary injunction) and to add prayers for declaration and mandatory injunction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had earlier rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 09.03.2016. The plaintiff did not challenge that order. The trial court then rejected the amendment application on 05.04.2018 on the ground that the plaintiff had not challenged the order rejecting temporary injunction.
Issues
Whether the rejection of an application for temporary injunction bars the plaintiff from seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and additional reliefs?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court's reasoning was strange and that the right to amend pleadings is not dependent on challenging an earlier interlocutory order.
The respondents opposed the amendment, but the High Court did not detail their arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to seek amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is a matter of right and is not dependent on challenging an earlier interlocutory order rejecting temporary injunction. The trial court's rejection of the amendment application on such a ground is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the view that the impugned order dated 05.04.2018, as passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru on I.A. No 6 in O.S. No. 4014 of 2015, rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner to amend the plaint, cannot be sustained from any stand-point and is required to be set aside.
It is difficult to appreciate as to how the right of a party to litigation to seek amendment of the pleadings could at all be adversely affected by the fact that the plaintiff has not challenged the order rejecting temporary injunction.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 4014 of 2015 seeking perpetual injunction. The trial court rejected I.A. No. 1 for temporary injunction on 09.03.2016. The plaintiff then filed I.A. No. 6 seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and additional reliefs. The trial court rejected I.A. No. 6 on 05.04.2018. The plaintiff filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Article 227
