Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahadevappa S/o Irappa Hudedamani, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, in O.S. No. 59/2012, rejecting I.A. No. 19 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The suit was a partition suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner and others. The petitioner had filed his written statement originally. After the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 19 seeking to amend the written statement to incorporate a plea that the suit property was not joint family property but was self-acquired property of the petitioner. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment was sought after the commencement of trial and would change the nature of the defence. The High Court considered the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, particularly the proviso which prohibits amendment after trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any explanation for the delay and that the amendment sought to introduce a new case inconsistent with the original defence. The High Court held that the trial court's order was just and proper and dismissed the writ petition. The court also observed that the petitioner could raise the issue of self-acquisition in the appeal if the suit is decreed against him.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment after commencement of trial - The petitioner sought to amend the written statement to claim that the suit property was not joint family property but self-acquired property of the petitioner, after evidence had been closed and the matter was posted for arguments. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and was not permissible after commencement of trial. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the amendment sought to introduce a new case and the petitioner failed to show due diligence. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due diligence - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. The petitioner did not provide any explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed after commencement of trial, and whether the amendment sought to introduce a new case inconsistent with the original pleadings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting I.A. No. 19. The court held that the amendment was sought after commencement of trial without showing due diligence and would introduce a new case.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- commencement of trial
- due diligence
- partition suit
- introduction of new case
