Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Kasturibai @ Lakkavva, was the first defendant in O.S. No. 45/2011 pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol. The suit was filed by the first respondent, Sri Subhas @ Subhash Reddi, seeking a declaration that defendants 3 and 4 were the owners of the suit schedule properties as heirs of the deceased Siddappa Ramappa Sataraddi and Smt. Sushilawwa, and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The petitioner filed a written statement on 22.08.2011 admitting the genealogy pleaded in the plaint. After pleadings were completed, the matter was posted for evidence, and the plaintiff filed an affidavit of PW.1 on 22.05.2012. At that stage, before the cross-examination of PW.1 commenced, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The proposed amendment sought to incorporate a plea that the plaintiff was not the son of Siddappa Ramappa Sataraddi and Smt. Sushilawwa, and that the genealogy was incorrect. The petitioner claimed that she had subsequently come to know of the true facts. The trial court rejected the application on the grounds that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the trial had not yet commenced as the cross-examination of PW.1 was still pending. Relying on the principle that pre-trial amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application. The court further observed that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Written Statement - Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC - Pre-trial amendment - The defendant sought to amend the written statement to incorporate a plea that the plaintiff was not the son of the deceased Siddappa Ramappa Sataraddi, based on subsequent knowledge. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and that the defendant had not exercised due diligence. The High Court held that since the trial had not commenced (only PW1 affidavit filed, cross-examination pending), the amendment was pre-trial and should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court further held that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff as the amendment could be compensated by costs. The impugned order was set aside and the amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. (Paras 1-8) B) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Multiplicity of proceedings - The court observed that if the amendment is not allowed, the defendant would be compelled to file a separate suit, leading to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the amendment was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 07.01.2015, and permitted the amendment of the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Multiplicity of proceedings
- Prejudice
- Due diligence
- Pre-trial amendment
