Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Hasmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Patel & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 23525 of 2022
Decided On : 23-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Aadit R Sanjanwala
For the Respondent: Karan G Sanghani, Mr Meet D Kakadia

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court has the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party. The court emphasized that the amendment should be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and should not change the nature of the suit.

Headnote:
Amendment of Pleadings - Special Civil Suit - Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. - Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - (1996) 1 SCC 90 - (2004) 6 SCC 415 - (2012) 11 SCC 341 - AIR 2022 SC 4256
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, original defendants, sought to quash an order allowing the respondents to amend the plaint in a Special Civil Suit. The suit pertained to a land dispute, and the respondents sought to recover possession of the land, which was inadvertently left out in the original prayer clause of the plaint. The petitioners opposed the amendment, arguing that it was barred by law and would change the nature of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had used its discretion appropriately in allowing the amendment, as the respondents had already made necessary averments in the plaint. The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new relief and that the trial court's decision was in consonance with the law. It concluded that no serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the amendment, and they would have the opportunity to defend their case before the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint was appropriate, considering the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court also considered the arguments related to the nature of the suit and the bar of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and relevant case law, including (1996) 1 SCC 90, (2004) 6 SCC 415, and (2012) 11 SCC 341, to determine that the trial court had used its discretion appropriately in allowing the amendment. It emphasized that the amendment did not introduce a new relief and that the trial court's decision was in consonance with the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding it meritless and held that no case was made out to interfere with the trial court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint. It discharged the notice and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed praying for the following reliefs:

“(a) the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the 7ª Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh.56 in Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010 (Annexure-A);

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010;

(d) For Costs

(e) For such other and further reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The Petitioners herein are the Original Defendants, whereas the Respondents herein are the Original Plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit proceedings. The suit proceedings pertain to the land bearing Revenue Survey No.264/2, admeasuring 6475 Sq. Meters of Village Katargam, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the Suit Land"). Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010 was instituted on 17.08.2010 by the Respondents herein - Original Plaintiffs simpliciter seeking a declaration that the Kabja Receipt, Vechan Karar and Kulmukhatyarnamu dated 15.12.2000 and the subsequent sale deed dated 29.03.2007 (registered on 23.04.2008) conveying the land to the Defendants as null and void. The Defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement below Exh. 35, controverting the false and concocted case of the Plaintiffs and placed on record documents showing the longstanding use, occupation and possession of the Suit Land by the Defendants. The issues were framed by the Trial Court below Exh. 38 on 04.08.2016. The plaintiffs right to lead evidence has been closed. The suit currently is at the stage of Defendant's evidence.

2.2 Eight years after institution of the suit, the Plaintiffs filed the application below Exh.56 on 26.10.2018, seeking permission to amend the plaint and incorporate a prayer to recover possession. This application was filed on the purported ground that the prayer to recover possession was inadvertently left out. The Defendants filed their reply to oppose the said application on 24.09.2019, pointing out that the prayer for amending the plaint is misconceived in facts and untenable in law and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. The impugned order is passed in the application below Exh.56. By the impugned order dated 28.03.2022, the Trial Court has allowed the application below Exh.56 and allowed the Respondents to amend the plaint in terms of the application.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh.56 in Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2010, the Petitioners - Original Defendants have filed the present petition.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Aadit R. Sanjanwala for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghani with learned advocate Mr. Meet D. Kakadia for the respective respondents. Perused the memo of the petition and also the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala submits that the suit is filed in the year 2010, issues are framed in the year 2016 and application for amendment is filed in the year 2018, which is apparently filed after the commencement of the trial and by referring to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), 1908, more particularly, proviso of the Order VI Rule 17, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala submits that such application below Exh.56 is required to be rejected, which the trial Court has wrongly granted without giving cogent and convincing reasons. He has further submitted that the proviso of the Order VI Rule 17 is clear and unambiguous. The proviso categorically stipulates that