Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Tilak Raj - Petitioner
Versus
M/s Bhavani Renewable Energy & others – Respondents
CMPMO No.635 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abinav Mohan Goel, Advocate.

Amendments to pleadings are permissible at any stage if necessary for effective adjudication, and delay alone does not warrant rejection unless it causes serious prejudice.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Application for amendment of written statement allowed by trial court to incorporate subsequent developments regarding partition and sale of land - Amendment deemed necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation - Delay in seeking amendment not a ground for rejection as it did not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. (Paras 8, 11, 16, 17)

(B) Amendment of pleadings - Courts are generally liberal in allowing amendments to written statements, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side - Delay alone is not sufficient to deny amendment if it does not alter the nature of the suit. (Paras 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing defendants to amend their written statement in a suit for permanent injunction regarding land ownership, citing subsequent partition and sale of land. The plaintiff argued that the amendment was belated and prejudicial.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the amendment necessary for effective adjudication and that it would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff.

Issues: Whether the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and whether the delay in seeking it was prejudicial to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amendments should be allowed to determine the real questions in controversy, and delay alone does not justify rejection unless it causes serious prejudice.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

The legal document discusses the principles governing the amendment of pleadings in civil litigation, specifically under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The key points include:

Amendments can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings if they are necessary for the effective adjudication of the case and do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party (!) (!) .
The amendments should aim to determine the real questions in controversy and should not alter the fundamental nature of the suit or cause unfair prejudice (!) (!) (!) .
Delay in seeking amendments alone is generally not a sufficient reason for rejection unless it results in serious prejudice or is malafide (!) (!) .
The court has a duty to adopt a liberal approach towards amendments, especially when they facilitate a fair and comprehensive decision, provided they do not introduce a new cause of action or defeat a legal right due to lapse of time (!) (!) .
Amendments that clarify or rectify material particulars, or incorporate subsequent developments relevant to the case, are typically allowed even if made after issues have been framed or trial has commenced, unless they fundamentally change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific case discussed, the court found that the amendments sought by the defendants were relevant to the issues at hand, necessary for a complete adjudication, and did not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the delay was attributable to ongoing related proceedings and did not warrant rejection of the amendment (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition challenging the order allowing the amendments, reaffirming the principle that amendments should be permitted to facilitate justice and effective dispute resolution unless they cause undue prejudice or are malafide (!) .

In summary, the document underscores the importance of a flexible, justice-oriented approach to amendments in pleadings, balancing the need for thorough adjudication with fairness to all parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 12.06.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra in CMA No.291 of 2024 in Civil Suit No.79 of 2013, whereby the application of respondents/defendants for amendment of written statement has been allowed.

2. The petitioner is plaintiff in Civil Suit No.79 of 2013 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra. The respondents are the defendants and for the sake of clarity, the parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold before learned trial Court.

3. The suit of the plaintiff is for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from raising any sort of construction on land comprised in Khata No.208 min, Khatauni No.404, Khasra Nos.361, 362, 635, 692, 700, 710, 734, 738, 743, 744, 746, 749, kita 12, measuring 01-07- 73 hectares (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”).

4. The plaintiff has alleged that he is one of the co- owners in possession of the suit land. According to him though, defendant No.4 was also one of the co-sharers, rest of the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The plaintiff has also maintained that the suit land is unpartitioned and for such reason also defendant No.4 could neither exercise right of possession over any specific portion of the suit land nor could he allow the others to use the same.

5. The defendants are contesting the suit. In the written statement filed by them, it has been averred that the plaintiff and another co-owner of suit land named Rakesh Kumar had sold specific land with possession, out of the suit land, to defendant No.4 and thus, defendant No.4 exercised right of exclusive possession. It has further been stated that the defendant No.4 has entered into an agreement dated 07.01.2013 with defendants No.1 to 3 and thereby has allowed them to utilize the land for the purposes of construction of some component(s) of Hydro Power Project.

6. The defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment to the written statement. They held that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land has been partitioned and some portion thereof has been purchased by defendants No.1 to 3 from defendant No.4 by way of registered sale deed. In view of such subsequent developments, the defendants intended to amend the written statement for the purpose of incorporating aforesaid facts.

7. The plaintiff contested the application by filing a reply. The main thrust in objecting the grant of prayer was on the delay in seeking the amendment. It was submitted that the partition of suit land had taken place in the year 2015 and sale deed was also executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 in 2017, whereas the application for amendment was belatedly filed in the year 2023. It was further submitted that the partition had not become final the plaintiff had filed an appeal against the order of partition which was pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra.

8. Learned trial Court has allowed the application for amendment of written statement by holding that the proposed amendment was imperative and proper for effective adjudication of the case. The amendment was result of subsequent developments which had taken place during the pendency of litigation and was necessary to be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It further held that no prejudice was likely be caused to the plaintiff as the plaintiff will get sufficient chance to rebut the pleadings.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the plaintiff will be prejudiced by allowance of amendment at such a belated stage. He pointed out that the plaintiff had closed his evidence in the year 2015. The defendants had been getting the case adjourned without examining their