Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Sudarshan Das - Appellant
Versus
Kamalendu Mondal And Others - Respondent
CO 1576 of 2018 with CAN 6101 of 2019
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - [Order 6 Rule 17] - The court allowed the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the need to minimize litigation and determine the real question in controversy between the parties. The court held that the proposed amendment had a reasonable and substantial nexus with the matter in issue and was necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits. The trial court's rejection of the amendment was deemed perverse and prejudicial to the parties' interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for right title interest over a property and sought rectification of a deed of sale and injunction. The trial court rejected the application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, leading to the petitioner's application under section 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the amendment of the plaint, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendment of the plaint, changing the nature and character of the suit, should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to minimize litigation and determine the real question in controversy between the parties. It held that the proposed amendment had a reasonable and substantial nexus with the matter in issue and was necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the plaint and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This is an application under section 227 of the Constitution of India against order No. 11 dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, 1st Court, Uluberia, in Title Suit No. 643 of 2015.
2. Petitioner as plaintiff had filed a suit against opposite parties wherein petitioner had prayed for right title interest over 'A' schedule property and had further prayed for a decree for rectification of the deed of sale , registered on 14.08.1996 and also for injunction restraining defendants no. 1 to 4 from alienating 2/3 share out of the 'A' schedule property, being Title Suit no 643 of 2015 which is now pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court Uluberia. In the said suit petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the said application for amendment was taken up for hearing by the Ld. Trial Judge and after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order, rejected the said application for amendment.
3. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned Trial judge has failed to appreciate that amendment as sought for, if allowed, will not change the nature and character of the suit. Learned Trial judge had erred in holding that plaintiff is intending to include new facts and events arising out of cause of action which is beyond the scope of the suit.
4. Supporting the impugned order Mr. Arijit Bardhan appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 5 to 9 contended that trial court has rightly refused to amend the plaint as per the schedule of the petition as the proposed amendment, if allowed, will change the basic nature and character of the suit and as such the revisional application is liable to be dismissed.
5. On perusal of petition for amendment of plaint filed by plaintiff dated 20.01.2017, it appears that plaintiff has contended that from the written statement filed by defendant no. 5 to 9 it transpires that they have purchased 'A' schedule property through two register deeds, one from defendant no. 1 to 3 and another from defendant no. 4 by deeds dated 09.12.2015 and on 20.06.2018 respectively. It has further been stated in the amendment application that plaintiff anticipated that the defendant no. 1 to 4 might execute and register deed in favour of defendant no. 5 to rest and it has appeared to be true when the said transfer in respect of 'A' schedule, during pendency of the suit has been disclosed in written statement. Therefore, challenging the propriety of execution of deed by defendant no. 1 to 4 as well as for introducing further facts ancillary to such transfer, they had prayed for amendment.
6. It appears from written objection filed by defendant no. 5 to 9 against prayer for amendment that answering defendants contended that the amendment application, if allowed, will change the character of the instant suit from a suit for rectification of plaintiff's own deed to a suit for cancellation of deed.
7. It is not in dispute that the impugned transfer by defendant No. 1 to 4 in connection with 'A' Schedule property in favour of opposite parties occurred subsequent to the institution of the instant suit. Opposite party's contention that the prayer for cancellation of the said deeds in this suits is premature as plaintiff has not yet obtained relief as sought for and that he can pray for cancellation of deeds by filing separate suit only after obtaining relief in this suit, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. The dominant purpose of allowing an amendment is to minimize the litigation. The relevant words in rule 17 are 'alter', 'amend' and 'amendments'. There is no express prohibition in order VI, rule 17 that conversion of a suit of one character into a suit of another character or inconsistent character provided it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Once it is fo
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on minimizing litigation and allowing amendments to determine the real question in controversy between the parties.
Amendments to pleadings in civil suits must be granted if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not cause harm to the opposing party, affirming a liberal approach in such matters.
Amendments to the plaint should be necessary for determining the real controversy in the suit and should not change the nature or character of the original claim.
Judicial orders must be reasoned to ensure fair adjudication, and amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification to avoid prejudice.
Point of law: High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there ....
The proposed amendment should not change the nature and character of the suit, cause prejudice, or set up an entirely new case.
The court highlighted the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings only if necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and emphasized that such amendments sh....
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
