Point of Law: Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 18.10.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, having been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs (herein after referred to as “the plaintiff”) came to be allowed, petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants”), have approached this court in the instant proceedings, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming ½ share of late Sh. Prem Singh in the suit land. Mutation No. 2368 attested on 13.5.1977 in the name of Sh. Bhoop Sigh ancestor of the defendants also came to be laid challenge in the aforesaid suit. Plaintiffs also prayed for consequential relief of possession. Suit having been filed by the plaintiffs came to be resisted by the defendants by way of filing written statement, wherein they claimed that plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Dhuri Devi was neither married to late Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Ishru, nor plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the sons of late Sh. Prem Singh and as such, they are not entitled to inherit the suit land belonging to Sh. Prem Singh. After framing of issues, but before commencement of evidence, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking therein permission to amend the plaint. In the afore application, plaintiffs averred that while preparing the case for evidence, it was noticed that previous counsel has not elaborated the relationship of the parties and same has not been happily worded, thus amendment proposed to be made is required to be made. Plaintiffs also averred in the application that they are not claiming any new right in the suit and proposed amendment is explanatory in nature and as such, if same is permitted, no prejudice of any kind shall be caused to the defendants, rather same would help the court to adjudicate the case in an effective manner. Aforesaid application came to be opposed by the defendants by filing reply, wherein they stated that neither subsequent development has taken place in the matter, nor the proposed amendment is explanatory in nature, rather if same is allowed, same would change the entire complexion of the suit. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record, learned trial court vide order dated 18.10.2022, allowed the application. In the aforesaid background, defendants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this court has no hesitation to conclude that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, same is required to be interfered with.

4. Before ascertaining the correctness of rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties vis-a-vis order impugned in the instant proceedings, it would be apt to take note of the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as under: “Order 6Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure:

17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

5. Bare perusal of aforesaid provision of law though suggests that court, at any stage of the proceedings, can allow either of the party to alter or amend its