Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who was the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 45/2011 pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.01.2015 passed on I.A. No. X, by which the trial court rejected his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the written statement. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent (plaintiff) for 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 their possession. The plaintiff claimed that he was the brother of the 4th defendant and son of the 3rd defendant, and produced a genealogy in the plaint. The petitioner/defendant-1 filed a written statement on 22.08.2011 admitting the genealogy. After pleadings were completed, the matter was posted for evidence, and the plaintiff filed his affidavit evidence on 22.05.2012. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application to amend the written statement, seeking to deny the genealogy and assert that the plaintiff was not the son of Siddappa Ramappa Sataraddi but of one Siddappa Basappa Sataraddi, and that the plaintiff had no right to the suit properties. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the defence and cause prejudice to the plaintiff, as the petitioner had earlier admitted the genealogy. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial and that a liberal approach should be adopted in allowing amendments at that stage. The court noted that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the amendment, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Pre-trial amendment - The defendant sought to amend the written statement to deny the genealogy earlier admitted, claiming it was a mistake. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it would change the nature of the defence and cause prejudice. The High Court held that since the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial, a liberal approach should be adopted, and the amendment should be allowed to enable the court to determine the real controversy between the parties. The order of the trial court was set aside and the amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, when the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial and was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 07.01.2015, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Pre-trial amendment
- Liberal approach
- No prejudice to opposite party
- Necessary for just adjudication
