Order VI Rule 17 CPC — Post-trial amendment — Due diligence
After commencement of trial, an amendment of pleadings can be permitted only if the Court is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial; such burden squarely lies on the party seeking amendment.
(Paras 12, 21, 27)
Amendment altering genealogy — Change in source of title
Amendment seeking repeated alteration of genealogy and substitution of an entirely new version of family lineage, resulting in a change of source and flow of title, amounts to altering the fundamental nature and structure of the suit and cannot be permitted.
(Paras 7–9, 16, 26)
Withdrawal of admissions — Impermissibility
Amendment which effectively seeks to withdraw or nullify admissions and contradictions that emerged during cross-examination of witnesses is not permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
(Paras 6, 8, 26)
Multiple inconsistent pleadings — Abuse of amendment jurisdiction
Where a plaintiff successively places mutually inconsistent genealogies by way of original plaint, earlier amendment, and proposed amendment, such conduct reflects lack of bona fides and disentitles the party from discretionary relief of amendment.
(Paras 6–9, 27)
Real controversy test — Limits
Though the “real controversy” test governs amendments, it cannot be invoked to reconstruct an entirely new case or to introduce a fresh cause of action after evidence has been recorded.
(Paras 14–15, 26)
Article 227 — Limited supervisory interference
When the Trial Court applies settled principles under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and rejects a post-trial amendment for valid reasons, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 28–29)
ANALYSIS
The Civil Revision Petition challenged the order dated 04-03-2024 passed in I.A.No.621 of 2018 in O.S.No.167 of 2012, by which the Trial Court rejected an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint (Paras 1–3).
The original suit filed in 2012 was for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction, founded on a specific genealogy and a registered sale deed dated 22-11-1976 (Paras 3, 8). In 2017, the plaintiffs had already obtained an amendment (I.A.No.630 of 2017), replacing the original genealogy with a revised version (Para 6).
After completion of examination and extensive cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, the plaintiffs sought yet another amendment in 2018, proposing a third and entirely different genealogy, thereby deleting substantial earlier pleadings and altering the foundation of title from a sale deed to ancestral inheritance (Paras 7–9, 16).
The High Court noted that the proposed amendment was filed after commencement of trial, without any pleading or proof of due diligence, as mandated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC (Paras 21, 27). The plea that the “correct genealogy” was discovered later through public documents was rejected as implausible, especially when two earlier versions had already been pleaded (Para 27).
The Court further found that the amendment was an attempt to overcome damaging admissions and contradictions elicited during cross-examination and to introduce vague and fresh allegations such as fabrication of revenue records, which were never part of the original case (Para 26).
Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Guruwara, Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., M. Revanna, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders, and Basavaraj v. Indira, the Court held that the amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the suit and could not be allowed (Paras 15, 22–26).
Consequently, the High Court held that the Trial Court committed no error warranting interference under Article 227, and dismissed the revision (Paras 28–29).
RATIO DECIDENDI
A post-trial amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to repeatedly alter genealogy and substitute a new source of title, thereby withdrawing earlier admissions and reconstructing the plaintiff’s case after cross-examination, cannot be permitted in the absence of strict proof of due diligence; rejection of such amendment by the Trial Court does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment