In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that an amendment altering the nature of a suit shouldn't be permitted under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (Hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). An amendment was sought by the Plaintiff to declare an earlier compromise decree void in a partition suit. The Court rejected the application, stating it changed the suit's nature.
A division bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal reversed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that amendments after trial commencement are permissible only if due diligence is proven. They clarified that oversight and mistakes are not valid grounds for later amendments.
Brief Facts:
Respondents No. 1 and 2 initiated a suit for the partition of their ancestral property, asserting that no actual partition had occurred. During the final stages of the suit, they requested to amend the plaint to include a prayer for declaring an earlier compromise decree null and void. They cited oversight and mistake as reasons for not seeking this relief earlier. The Trial Court rejected the application, but the High Court overturned this decision, allowing the amendment with the condition of paying costs.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fresh suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, seeking partition of ancestral property, ignored the existence of a compromise decree from a previous suit. Despite being aware of the decree, they made no effort to challenge it. The High Court's decision to allow an amendment changing the nature of the suit from partition to declaration was deemed impermissible. Additionally, the appellant argued that the amendment sought was time-barred, as it was filed years after the compromise decree. They pointed out that no due diligence was demonstrated, and the justification provided for the delay was merely an oversight.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that the failure to include the prayer for the declaration of the earlier compromise decree as null and void was merely an oversight. They emphasized that the necessary pleadings about the compromise decree were already present in the suit. Further, it was contended that no fresh evidence is required, as the case is at the arguments stage, and the issues can be reframed accordingly allowing the amendment will prevent further litigation and ensure complete justice for all parties involved, who are solely seeking partition of the ancestral property. They also highlight that compensating the other side with costs, as done by the High Court, will alleviate any potential prejudice to the appellant.
The Supreme Court determined that allowing the amendment would significantly alter the suit's nature, potentially rendering it impermissible. The original suit sought partition and separate possession, but the proposed amendment aimed to challenge the validity of a compromise decree, a substantial departure from the suit's original purpose. The Court referenced M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (2019) 4 SCC 332 to support its position that amendments introducing entirely new and inconsistent claims or changing the suit's fundamental character may be rejected.
Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of filing amendment requests before the trial begins, citing Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court criticized respondents No. 1 and 2 for failing to demonstrate due diligence in seeking the relief earlier, dismissing the oversight as an insufficient reason for late amendments. Referring to Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84, the Court highlighted the potential prejudice to the appellant if the amendment were allowed stressing that the interests of the opposing party must be considered. The Court outlined factors to be evaluated when considering an amendment application, including whether it would prejudice the other party or fundamentally change the nature of the case.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the present appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Case Title: Basavaraj vs Indira And Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 122 SC
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Nishant Patil, Adv., Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR, Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv., Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta II, AOR, Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
