The High Court of Calcutta in its recent ruling held that “if a fact comes to the knowledge of the opposite party after the filing of the principal written objection, it can still be incorporated under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), provided the amendment is relevant and does not introduce new pleas that could surprise the other party.”
This ruling was made while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which challenged the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Learned Civil Judge in a case arising out of a Title Suit.
Brief Facts:
The Plaintiffs/Revisionists filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants before the Learned Civil Judge. After filing the said suit, the Plaintiffs/Revisionists filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the Learned Judge was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of nature, character, and possession over the property till next date of hearing. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application on 31.08.2019 for amendment of his written objection, which was allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 16.11.2019, the present Revisional Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the written objection filed with affidavit by opposite party no.1, mentioned above evidently shows that the facts proposed to be brought by way of amendment, were within the knowledge of the defendant/opposite party no.1 and the same was also mentioned in the written objection filed by the defendant/opposite party no.1 in connection with injunction application filed in Title Suit.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of his written objection filed in Misc. Case to incorporate the subsequent facts that occurred after filing of his written objection dated 21.08.2014.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the proviso to Rule 17, Order 6 does not permit a litigant to amend the pleadings after the commencement of the trial unless he satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier.
The Court observed that if a fact comes to the knowledge of the opposite party after the filing of the principal written objection, it can still be incorporated under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, provided the amendment is relevant, and it does not introduce new pleas that could surprise the other party. Even though the disputed amendment application was filed after a substantial period of time, it still cannot be the sole parameter upon which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 can be rejected when those facts are necessary to be taken into account to come to a just conclusion and proper adjudication of the disputed question of facts in connection with the instant case.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no valid reason to interfere with the observation of the Ld. Trial Judge in disposing of the amendment application.
Case Title: Samir Ghosh & Anr. vs. Pratap Ghosh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 3336 Cal/2
Case No.:C.O. 910 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Debjit Mukherjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, click here
