Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
Sri Bijoy Krishna Pal – Appellant
Versus
Sri Mohan Chatterjee & Ors. – Respondents
C.O. No. 2834 of 2013
Decided on : 22-04-2024
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order 6 Rule 17 - [Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC] - The court allowed the amendment application to insert the prayer for Mandatory Injunction and recovery of possession in the prayer portion of the plaint by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. They sought to amend the plaint to insert prayers for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of a 'bedi' and to delete a prayer for relinquishing a 'Koop' (well) as their predecessors had already given it to the Bankura Municipality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit and that the amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The court allowed the amendment application to insert the prayer for Mandatory Injunction and recovery of possession in the prayer portion of the plaint by the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was the power of the Court to allow an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited various decisions, emphasizing that courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The court also highlighted that the amendment to pleading should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to impede the dispensation of justice.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the Trial Court was set aside to the extent of the amendment concerning 'bhairab bedi'. The trial court was directed to permit the plaintiff to carry out the amendment and file an amended plaint. The defendant was permitted to file an additional written statement, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
Prasenjit Biswas, J.
1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated May 16, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Bankura in connection with Title Suit No. 4 of 2012.
2. By passing the impugned order learned Trial Court allowed the application in part filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer for amendment of the plaint. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order one of the plaintiffs filed this instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner along with proforma opposite party had instituted a suit against the defendants with a prayer for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the scheduled property as mentioned in the plaint. The defendants entered into that suit and contested the same by filing written statement denying and disputing all the materials allegations as stated in the plaint. In that suit an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to hold local investigation in respect of the suit property and after conducting the local investigation the Advocate Commissioner submitted a report before the Trial Court. Thereafter this petitioner along with the proforma opposite party had filed an application with a prayer for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Trial Court by which they intended to insert the prayers of mandatory injunction and recovery of possession in respect of a ‘bedi’ situated on the scheduled property in the prayer portion of the plaint. Another prayer was also made by the plaintiffs with a prayer for relinquishing the claim over a ‘Koop’ (well) as predecessors of the plaintiff have already gave it in favour of the Bankura Municipality and by filing the amendment application the plaintiffs prayed for deleting the said prayer portion from the plaint.
4. Despite service affected upon the opposite party they did not venture to appear and contest the present revisional application.
5. Let the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in applying the settled tests as provided under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and committed error in allowing the application for amendment in part. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the proposed amendment as prayed for shall not change the nature and character of the suit. Learned Trial Court erred in law by holding that the opposite parties shall be prejudiced if the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. The attention of this Court is drawn by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect of a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Akkamma And Others vs. Vemavathi And Others reported in (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 371.
7. The amendment application was filed by the plaintiffs intending to insert the prayer for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession of a bedi situated on the scheduled property and with a prayer for relinquishing the ‘Koop’ (well). It is stated by the petitioner that the said bedi was made during the pendency of this suit and as such prayer for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession is required to be inserted in the prayer portion of the plaint otherwise they will be prejudiced but in respect of the ‘Koop’ (well) it is stated by the petitioner that their predecessor-in-interests have already given it in favour of the Bankura Municipality and as such the prayer made in respect of the claim of the said ‘Koop’ (well) is required to be deleted.
8. Learned Trial Court after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides allowed the prayer of deleting the claim in respect of the ‘Koop’ (well) situated over the scheduled property but in respect of the inserting the prayer of mandatory injunction and recovery of possession in respect of bedi situated on t
Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The amendment to pleading should be libe....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of proceedings to determine the real controversy.
Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, minimizing litigation, and ensuring justice.
The principle that amendments to pleadings should be allowed to ensure justice and to determine the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party....
Post-trial amendments to pleadings are generally not favored by courts and may be rejected if they are barred by limitation, would cause prejudice to the opposite party, change the nature of the suit....
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
The Court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
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
