Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, who was the paternal aunt of the respondent, challenging the refusal of the Trial Court to allow an amendment of pleadings in Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 2016. The petitioner claimed that she executed an Oral Hiba in favor of the respondent regarding the suit property, which the respondent used to assert ownership. The petitioner contended that no such Hiba was executed and sought revocation of the alleged Hiba through her suit. The respondent had previously filed Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2010, which was compromised, leading to a decree in favor of the respondent. The petitioner sought to amend her pleadings to include a prayer for cancellation of this compromise decree and to address the dispossession of her tenant. The Trial Court rejected the amendment application, prompting the petitioner to file the Writ Petition. The petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication and that the compromise decree was fraudulent. The respondent opposed the amendment, asserting that the petitioner was aware of the compromise and had not justified the delay in seeking the amendment. The court analyzed the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Order VI Rule 17 and Order XXIII Rule 3A, concluding that the petitioner could not amend her plaint to seek cancellation of the compromise decree as it was barred by law. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's decision and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code - The petitioner sought to amend pleadings to include a prayer for cancellation of a compromise decree, claiming it was obtained by fraud. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking the relief earlier and could not amend the plaint to seek cancellation of the compromise decree as per Order XXIII Rule 3A. (Paras 5.2-5.4) B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Bar to Suit - Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code - The court noted that no suit could lie to set aside a decree based on an unlawful compromise, and the petitioner was a party to the original suit, thus the amendment was not permissible. (Paras 5.4-5.6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court rejecting the amendment application was upheld. The court found no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Jurisdiction of Trial Court
- Compromise decree
- Oral Hiba
- Due diligence
