The single-judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the application for amendment of pleadings may be filed by either of the parties at any stage of the proceeding. So, it is the liberty of the parties of any suit to take steps for amendment of pleadings if they are required to do so for determination of the real matters in controversy. There is no scope on the part of any Court to issue any direction to either of the parties of the suit to take any step for amendment of the pleadings. Rather it is the party who is to decide the matters for determining the real matters in controversy for proper adjudication of the suit.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner filed the suit for partition of the parental property before the learned civil judge. However, the trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of the existence of a will. Thereafter, the appeal was filed and the said appeal was also dismissed while upholding the order passed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the second appeal was preferred before the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to frame proper issues and to deliver a fresh judgment in accordance with the law after taking evidence fixing 4(four) months. Furthermore, the Petitioner filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint for determining the real matters of controversy between the parties before the Learned Trial Court. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that in the judgment no liberty was granted to the parties to amend their pleadings. Aggrieved by this, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that as per the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, it appears that amendment of pleadings can only be allowed by the Court for determining the real matters in controversy between the parties.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Nichhalbhai Vallabhai and others v. Jaswantlal Zinabhai and others, Baldev Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and another, Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others, and Mahila Ramkali Devi and others v. Nandram(Dead) through legal representatives and others.
The court furthermore observed that the scope of amendment is very wide and it can be allowed at any stage even during the stage of appeal for determining the real matters in controversy between the rival parties.
The court noted that as there was specific direction to the trial court to conclude the matter within 4 months, so, the learned trial court was under a misconception of fact that there was no scope on the part of the Learned Trial Court to consider amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner due to specific direction of Court.
The court furthermore noted that the Court lacks the authority to direct a party to amend their pleadings. The party in question is free to decide what action to take in response to their pleadings. The only thing the Court can do is instruct the Learned Trial Court to remove any procedural flaws that it neglected to address when issuing any orders.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that even in the case of a specific direction, the concerned court should dispose of the application. The court set aside the order passed by the learned trial court.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case Title: Smt. Anindita Ray Choudhury V. Smt. Alakananda Roy(Basu)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Case No.: CRP No.58 of 2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv, Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. S. Saha, Adv, Mr. S. Datta, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
