Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Bhramappa S/o Parappa Savadi, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Banhatti, in O.S. No.96/2005, whereby the trial court rejected I.A. No.XX filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint. The original suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural land. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint to incorporate an alternative prayer for specific performance of contract, alleging that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property to him and had executed an agreement of sale. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the suit was at the stage of evidence and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application. The court observed that the amendment was sought before the conclusion of evidence and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, who could be compensated by costs. The court further held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely added an alternative relief based on the same facts. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the defendants.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial amendment - The court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed before trial commences, and the fact that the suit is at the stage of evidence does not bar amendment if no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The trial court erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the suit was at the stage of evidence and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. (Paras 5-7) B) Specific Relief Act - Alternative Relief - Specific Performance - The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer for specific performance of contract in a suit originally filed for permanent injunction. The court held that such an amendment is permissible as it does not introduce a new cause of action but merely adds an alternative relief based on the same facts. (Paras 4-6) C) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Prejudice - The court observed that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement and lead evidence on the amended pleadings. The amendment was sought before the conclusion of evidence, and the defendants could be compensated by costs. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to incorporate an alternative relief of specific performance of contract, when the suit was at the stage of evidence and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 02.11.2016, and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the defendants.
Law Points
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Amendment of pleadings
- Alternative relief
- Pre-trial amendment
- Liberal approach
- No prejudice to opposite party
