Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants in a suit, challenging the order of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta dated 25.11.2021, by which the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of the plaint was allowed. The suit, O.S.No.41/2018, was originally filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of an advance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- paid under an Agreement to Sell dated 06.09.2010. The plaintiffs were the legal heirs of one late Chetan Kumar, who had entered into the agreement with the petitioners/defendants for purchase of agricultural land. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and that after Chetan Kumar's sudden death, the plaintiffs sought return of the advance amount. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the existence of the agreement and contended that the suit property was part of a joint family property which had been partitioned. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.6 seeking to amend the plaint by adding two prayers for specific performance, i.e., for direction to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed and, in the alternative, for appointment of a commissioner to execute the deed. The trial court allowed the amendment. The petitioners/defendants contended that the amendment was belated, filed after commencement of evidence without showing due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and that the suit as framed was barred by limitation. They also pointed out that their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed on 22.10.2019, was still pending. The respondents/plaintiffs argued that the nature of the suit was not being changed, as the plaint already referred to the Agreement to Sell, and only additional reliefs were being sought. They submitted that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- had been paid as advance and had not been returned. The High Court, while entertaining the writ petition, stayed the operation of the impugned order on 16.03.2022, and the suit remained stalled for almost five years. The Court framed the point for consideration as to whether the trial court had erred in allowing the amendment application. The Court observed that it is no longer res integra that ordinarily courts have to be liberal while granting amendments to the plaint especially when... (the noting is incomplete). The judgment text ends abruptly without a final decision, and therefore the outcome of the writ petition is not available.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Liberal Approach - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17 - The High Court noted that it is well settled that ordinarily courts should be liberal in granting amendments to the plaint, especially when the amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The Court was examining a challenge to an order allowing an amendment that sought to convert a suit for recovery of money into one for specific performance. The judgment is incomplete and no final decision was rendered. (Paras 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Trial Court erred in exercising jurisdiction by allowing the amendment application?
Law Points
- Courts should be liberal in granting amendments to the plaint
