The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records and quash the impugned order dated 27.05.2022, passed by the court of JMFC in an application filed by the petitioner under order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure. The Court observed that by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners-plaintiffs merely sought to introduce additional facts and make necessary changes to the prayer column for the purpose of establishing his title, possession, etc. over the suit schedule property.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the first instance, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 filed a written statement, pursuant to which the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2-defendant No.2 has been impleaded as an additional defendant to the suit. Though the said application for amendment was not opposed or contested either by defendant No.1 or defendant No.2, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the same amounts to changing and altering the nature and character of the suit, which was impermissible after commencement of trial in the light of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the amendment application, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners-plaintiffs merely sought to introduce additional facts and make necessary changes to the prayer column for the purpose of establishing his title, possession, etc. over the suit schedule property.
The Court observed that at the stage of considering an application for amendment of pleadings, merits/demerits of the proposed amendment cannot be gone into by the Court and the same would necessarily have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial.
Further, the Court said that the interest of the respondents-defendants in so far as the defence of limitation, maintainability, etc. can be adequately safeguarded by considering/reckoning the proposed amendment from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of filing of the suit.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application, I.A.No.9, which is opposed to the principles of law governing amendment of pleadings and has occasioned a failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
Case Title: Raju & Anr. vs Moulipeter & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 25731 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sharadamba A R
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Yathish J. Nadiga
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :