The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the records pending on the file Additional City Civil Judge, and set aside the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, passed on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The Court observed that the plaintiff intends to explain the previously instituted proceedings between the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants; if those facts are added by way of amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the defendants.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement on 24.04.2010. Thereafter the plaintiff/petitioner herein filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on 24.11.2018 to amend the plaint to add additional facts. The defendants filed an application for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the same suit schedule property and stated that the amendment application was filed with the intention to protract the proceedings. The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 20.12.2019. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was filed when the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, even before cross-examination of P.W.1. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the amendment application if allowed would not prejudice the case of the defendants. He argued that the amendment application to add additional facts is to explain the title and previously instituted litigation between the parties and not for additional prayer.
Observations of the Court:
The Court said that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides for the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. The parties could seek for amendment of pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. If the amendment is a pre-trial amendment, the Court could allow it on terms and when the amendment is after the commencement of trial, unless the Court is satisfied that with due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, the Court would not get jurisdiction to allow the amendment.
The Court observed that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint to include additional facts. Though the matter is set down for the plaintiff’s evidence, the cross-examination of P.W.1 had not yet commenced, when the amendment application was filed. There was not much progress in the suit. The Court noted that the plaintiff intends to explain the previously instituted proceedings between the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants. If those facts are added by way of amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the defendants.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 passed on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge is set aside and the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed.
Case Title: G S Sudhir vs S Krishnamurthy & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2380 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajashekar S.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Nagendrashetty
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
