Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Balu Hore, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 29.03.2008, under which the respondent, Bhupal Neminath Navale, agreed to sell 8.5 R of land. The plaintiff paid almost 90% of the sale consideration (Rs. 3,10,000) and possession was handed over. In 2019, the suit was filed, and on 19.05.2020, an interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's possession. However, just before the injunction, the defendant gifted the property to his son by registered gift deed dated 07.06.2019, and later in 2020, the son sold the property to Julekha Kazi. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to bring these subsequent events on record and to implead the son and Julekha Kazi as defendants. The trial court rejected the application on 05.11.2022, stating that it would complicate the suit. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the amendment should have been allowed as it sought to record developments subsequent to the suit, would reduce multiplicity, and was necessary to determine real issues. The court relied on Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559 and Dinesh Goyal v. Pappu (2024 Live Law SC 739), emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments. The petition was disposed of without costs, and the trial court was directed to fix a time limit for carrying out the amendments.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Subsequent Events - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application for amendment seeking to bring on record subsequent events (gift and sale of suit property) and to implead transferees pendente lite, solely on the ground that it would complicate the suit. The High Court held that such amendment is necessary to determine real issues and prevent multiplicity, and should be allowed liberally. (Paras 6-9) B) Civil Procedure - Transferee Pendente Lite - Impleadment - The defendant's son and Julekha Kazi, being transferees pendente lite, are proper parties. Their impleadment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings, even if not mandatory. (Para 7) C) Civil Procedure - Amendment - Liberal Approach - The Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal v. Pappu held that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided, and amendments should be allowed liberally, especially when costs can compensate the opposite party. The crucial test is necessity to determine real issues and prevent multiplicity. (Para 9)
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 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it would complicate the suit.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 05.11.2022 is set aside. The petitioner's application at Exhibit 60 is allowed. The Trial Judge shall fix a time limit within which such amendments are to be carried out, and the petitioner shall do so within such time limit. The petition is disposed of without any orders for costs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Transferee pendente lite
- Multiplicity of proceedings
- Liberal approach to amendments
