Order VI Rule 17 CPC — Amendment of plaint — Post-trial stage
After commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted unless the party establishes that in spite of due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial.
(Paras 12, 19–21, 26)
Amendment introducing fresh reliefs — Declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction
Where the original suit was filed only for cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction, an amendment seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction amounts to setting up a new and distinct cause of action and changes the nature and structure of the suit.
(Paras 23, 25)
Delay of 12 years — Lack of due diligence
When denial of title and possession was specifically pleaded in the written statement filed in 2010, and amendment is sought only in 2022, the requirement of “due diligence” under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not satisfied.
(Paras 12, 26)
Amendment at fag end of trial — Not permissible
When plaintiffs’ evidence is completed and the matter is posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, permitting amendment would derail the trial and cause undue delay.
(Paras 25–26)
Fresh cause of action — Cannot be merged with old litigation
Alleged dispossession or trespass said to have occurred in August 2021 gives rise to a fresh cause of action, which cannot be merged into a suit instituted on an entirely different cause of action pending since 2010.
(Para 25)
Absence of prima facie material
In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence to prima facie establish alleged dispossession, illegal occupation or construction, amendment cannot be allowed on mere pleadings.
(Paras 23–24)
Limitation — Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963
Amendment seeking declaration and recovery of possession based on adverse possession, after denial of title in 2010 and lapse of 12 years, would defeat limitation and disturb accrued rights.
(Para 27)
Article 227 — Limited scope of interference
Where the Trial Court has exercised discretion judiciously while rejecting amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 28)
ANALYSIS
The three Civil Revision Petitions arose out of dismissal of applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaints in three connected suits. Since the parties and issues were identical, the High Court disposed of all revisions by a common order, treating C.R.P. No.1358 of 2023 as the lead case (Para 4).
The original suit (O.S.No.151 of 2010, later renumbered as O.S.No.227 of 2014) was filed for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 27-11-2009 and permanent injunction (Para 12). The written statement filed on 11-11-2010 specifically denied the plaintiffs’ title and possession and asserted possession of defendant No.8 (Paras 12, 23).
The amendment applications were filed in 2022, after completion of plaintiffs’ evidence and when the suit stood posted for cross-examination of D.W.1 (Para 25). By the proposed amendments, the plaintiffs sought to introduce declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, based on alleged dispossession in August 2021 and a plea of adverse possession (Paras 23, 25).
The Court held that such amendments would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, introduce a fresh cause of action, and attempt to overcome limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Paras 23, 25, 27). The petitioners failed to demonstrate due diligence, as denial of title and possession was pleaded as early as 2010 (Para 26).
The Court further noted the absence of prima facie evidence to support the plea of dispossession or illegal construction and observed that any subsequent trespass would require independent proceedings (Paras 24–25).
Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s orders, the High Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and dismissed all three revision petitions (Paras 28–30).
RATIO DECIDENDI
An amendment of plaint sought after commencement of trial, introducing fresh reliefs such as declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction on a new cause of action, after long delay and without proof of due diligence, is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; such amendment, particularly at the fag end of trial and where limitation has accrued under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, cannot be permitted, and refusal thereof does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment