Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hon'ble Justice N.K. Patil, J.
Ramappa - Appellant
Vs.
Shivaputrappa Adiveppa Navalagatti dead by L.Rs. and others - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 949 and 950 of 2000
Decided on : 27-08-2002
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure - [Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure] - The court allowed the amendment sought by the petitioner, emphasizing the wide power to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice, and discouraging a hypertechnical approach. The court highlighted that technicalities of law should not hamper the administration of justice and amendments are allowed to minimize litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants for a permanent injunction. The Plaintiff filed applications for amendment after a delay of more than 9 years, seeking relief of declaring an alleged document as null and void. The trial Court rejected the applications on the ground of delay and laches.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court's rejection of the applications was found to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the wide power to allow amendments in the interest of justice and highlighted that technicalities of law should not hamper the administration of justice.
Issues: Delay in filing the applications for amendment, the trial Court's rejection of the applications, and the legal position regarding amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize litigation, and a hypertechnical approach should be discouraged. The power to allow amendments is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The revision petitions filed by the Petitioner were allowed, and the impugned order passed by the trial Court was set aside. The applications for amendment were allowed, subject to the payment of costs to the Respondents. The matter was remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with the case in accordance with law and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Key Points: - The court emphasizes the wide power to allow amendments at any stage in the interest of justice and to discourage a hypertechnical approach. (!) - Amendments are allowed to minimize litigation and should not be hampered by technicalities of law; liberal approach is preferred where costs can compensate the other side. (!) - The revision petitions were allowed; the trial court’s order rejecting amendments was set aside and amendments were allowed subject to costs, with remand to dispose expeditiously. (!) (!) (!) - The purpose of Order 6, Rule 17 is to permit altering or amending pleadings in a just manner; the power is wide and can be exercised at any stage in the interest of justice. (!) - The dominant aim of allowing amendments is to minimize litigation, and delays or laches should be weighed against this liberal approach. (!)
N.K. Patil, J.--Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
2. These two revision petitions are filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belgaum on I.A. Nos. XI and XII in O.S. No. 312 of 1990.
3. The Plaintiff-Petitioner has filed a suit against the Respondents-Defendants for the decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the Petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit, the Petitioner herein has filed I.A. Nos. XI and XII which had come up for hearing before the trial Court on 26.2.2000. The trial Court after hearing both sides has rejected the prayers sought for by the Petitioner in the said I. As on the ground that the applications have been filed by the Petitioner after the lapse of more than 9 years, seeking for relief of declaring the alleged document as null and void. Further, it is stated that the alleged transaction of sale between the Petitioner and the Respondents was brought to the notice of the Petitioner as early as on 22.8.1990 itself and the Petitioner has not made any sincere efforts to make appropriate application well in time. On these two technical grounds, the trial Court has not accepted the case made out by the Petitioner for seeking an additional relief and rejected the same by its order dated 26.2.2000. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 26.2.2000 passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner has presented this revision petition.
4. The principal submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner came to know regarding the proposed amendment and the impleading application to be filed after the written statement filed by the Respondents and if the said applications are allowed, it is no way prejudice the right of the Respondents nor it change the nature of the suit. The trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the request made by the Petitioner on a hyper technical ground that, there is a delay of more than 9 years in making such applications and if at all, if the Petitioner wants to make such applications, he might have filed within three years from the date of his knowledge. But in the instant case, the Petitioner has filed the applications to adjudicate the matter effectively in the present case itself. He has further pointed out that the specific reasoning was given by the trial Court stating that, "no-doubt the relief of declaration will not change the nature of suit for injunction in case if it is permissible under the statute". If the Court is satisfied, it ought not to have rejected the applications filed by the Petitioner.
5. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and Others, AIR 2001 SC 699 and contended that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, the Petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Further he contended that the reasons assigned by the trial Court is perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and prayed that the same may be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents inter alia contended that, the applications filed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation. If at all, if the Petitioner wanted to file the applications, he might have filed those applications within three years from the date of his knowledge. He has taken me through the impugned order passed by the trial Court and pointed out that the said fact has been brought to the notice of the Petitioner by the Respondents as early as on 28.8.1990 itself and thereafter the Petitioner has not made any sincere efforts for filing the applications and he has filed those applications on 28.8.1999 and there is an inordinate delay of more than 8 years. Therefor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
