Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Janaki, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, on I.A. No. 5 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in FDP 3/2004. The FDP was initiated pursuant to a preliminary decree passed in O.S. 187/1997, a partition suit. The application was filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Lalitha (respondent No. 1), seeking to include 3.30 acres of agricultural land in Sy. No. 128 of Madhaghata Village in the schedule appended to the plaint. The trial court allowed the application, permitting the amendment. The petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit, challenged this order on the ground that after a preliminary decree, the suit is deemed to have been disposed of and no amendment to the plaint is permissible. The High Court examined the nature of final decree proceedings under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC and the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court noted that the final decree proceeding is a continuation of the suit and the court has the power to include properties that were inadvertently omitted, especially when they are joint family properties. The court held that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment. The court emphasized that the final decree is meant to divide all joint family properties, and if a property is left out, it can be included through amendment at the final decree stage.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Final Decree Proceedings - Inclusion of Property - The court considered whether an application to amend the plaint by adding a new property can be entertained after a preliminary decree in a partition suit. Held that such amendment is permissible in final decree proceedings if the property is joint family property and was inadvertently omitted, as the purpose of final decree is to effectuate the preliminary decree and include all joint properties. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Final Decree - Order 20 Rule 18 CPC - Scope - The court examined the scope of final decree proceedings in a partition suit. Held that the final decree is meant to divide the properties as per the preliminary decree, and if a property belonging to the joint family is left out, it can be included through amendment to avoid multiplicity of suits. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to include additional property in the schedule can be allowed in final decree proceedings after a preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the trial court allowing the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Final decree proceedings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Order 20 Rule 18 CPC
- Inclusion of property
- Preliminary decree
- Partition suit
