Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suryakant M. Bichkunde, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bidar, in Misc. No. 25/2009. The respondent, Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (KSIIDC), had filed a petition under Section 31(1)(a) and (aa) and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, for recovery of Rs. 18,33,36,036/- with interest from the petitioner and other respondents, alleging that the first respondent had borrowed money and the others stood as guarantors. The petitioner, who was respondent No. 6(a) in the original petition, filed a written statement denying the claim. Subsequently, before the commencement of trial, the petitioner filed I.A. No. XI under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement to incorporate additional grounds, including that the claim was barred by limitation and that the petitioner had been discharged as a surety. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and that the petitioner had not explained the delay in filing the application. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent. The court held that since the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial, a liberal approach should be adopted, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs. The court also noted that the trial court had not considered the fact that the amendment was pre-trial and that the grounds of limitation and discharge of surety were valid defences.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial amendment - Liberal approach - The court held that an application for amendment of written statement filed before the commencement of trial should be allowed liberally, as no prejudice is caused to the opposite party which cannot be compensated by costs. The trial court's rejection on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence was erroneous. (Paras 5-8)
B) State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Recovery proceedings - Limitation and discharge of surety - The petitioner sought to amend the written statement to raise the defence of limitation and discharge of surety. The court held that such defences are permissible and the amendment should be allowed to enable the petitioner to raise all available grounds. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which sought to incorporate additional grounds of limitation and discharge of surety, despite the amendment being sought before the commencement of trial.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 21.08.2015, and permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Pre-trial amendment
- Liberal approach
- Limitation
- Discharge of surety
- State Financial Corporation Act 1951
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (05) 9
Writ Petition No. 204854/2015 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Ravi B. Patil (for petitioner), Sri. R.V. Nadagouda (AAG for respondent)
Sri. Suryakant M. Bichkunde
Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application for amendment of written statement in a recovery proceeding under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.08.2015 passed on I.A. No. XI under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in Misc. No. 25/2009 by the Principal District Judge, Bidar, and to allow the amendment application.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement on the ground that it would change the nature of the defence and that the petitioner had not explained the delay.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal District Judge, Bidar) rejected I.A. No. XI filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in Misc. No. 25/2009 by order dated 21.08.2015.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before the commencement of trial.
Whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the defence and cause prejudice to the respondent.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial and should be liberally allowed; no prejudice would be caused to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs.
Respondent argued that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and that the petitioner had not explained the delay in filing the application.
Ratio Decidendi
An application for amendment of written statement filed before the commencement of trial should be allowed liberally, as no prejudice is caused to the opposite party which cannot be compensated by costs. The trial court's rejection on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence is erroneous when the amendment is sought at a pre-trial stage.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 passed on I.A.No.XI filed under order VI Rule 17 of CPC by allowing the writ petition.
The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and that the petitioner had not explained the delay in filing the application.
Since the amendment is sought before the commencement of trial, a liberal approach should be adopted, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs.
Procedural History
The respondent (KSIIDC) filed Misc. No. 25/2009 under Section 31(1)(a) and (aa) and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, for recovery of Rs. 18,33,36,036/-. The petitioner, as respondent No. 6(a), filed a written statement. Before the commencement of trial, the petitioner filed I.A. No. XI under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The trial court rejected the application on 21.08.2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
- State Financial Corporation Act, 1951: Section 31(1)(a), Section 31(1)(aa), Section 32
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
