Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Khader Khan - Appellant
Versus
Anwar Batcha & Another - Respondent
C.R.P(PD) No. 1850 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 9713 of 2016
Decided On : 08-03-2022
Amendment - Civil Suit - Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C - 2010 (2) CTC 609 - The court dismissed the application for amending the plaint seeking to change the nature and character of the suit after a delay of four years from the commencement of trial and passing of ex-parte decree. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide valid reasons for the delay and that the amendment would lead to a new suit. The court distinguished the case from a previous judgment where the amendment was sought before the trial and did not alter the nature of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Later, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include a new prayer for declaration, claiming adverse possession of the suit property. The amendment application was filed after a delay of four years from the commencement of trial and passing of ex-parte decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment sought by the petitioner would change the nature and character of the suit, leading to a new suit. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to provide valid reasons for the delay in filing the amendment application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow the amendment of the plaint after a delay of four years from the commencement of trial and passing of ex-parte decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment sought after a significant delay and after the commencement of trial, which would change the nature of the suit, was not permissible. The court distinguished the case from a previous judgment where the amendment was sought before the trial and did not alter the nature of the suit.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Palladam in I.A.No.179 of 2014 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 dated 26.04.2016 was confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order and decree dated 26.04.2016 passed in I.A.No.179 of 2014 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 by the District Munsif, Palladam.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Palladam in I.A.No.179 of 2014 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 dated 26.04.2016, dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by him.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
3. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner herein. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Palladam, for the following reliefs:
(a) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 & 2 and their men, servants, agents, from in any way and any manner, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and attempting to trespass into the suit property and cause disturbance to the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and not to evict the plaintiff except under due process of law.
(b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and his men, servant, agent, from in any way and any manner, alienating, encumbering, transferring, conveying the suit property either to the Defendant No.2 or to any third parties.”
3.1. The respondents/defendants have filed their written statement on 29.09.2010, denying the averments made by the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint.
3.2. While the aforesaid suit is pending, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.179 of 2014 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C, seeking to amend the plaint. In the plaint, it has been stated that the petitioner/plaintiff has chosen the first respondent/defendant No.1 as a purchaser to purchase the suit property and as such, on 29.08.1979, the legal heirs of one late Mrs.Julika Beebi had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the first respondent/defendant No.1. The said Sale Deed was registered as Document No.1200 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Palladam. On the very same day, the first respondent/defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and as such, on 29.08.1979, the petitioner/plaintiff and the first respondent/defendant No.1 had entered into a Sale Agreement and the same was registered as Document No.1201 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Palladam.
3.3. In the Sale Agreement dated 29.08.1979, it is recited that the Sale Price was fixed as Rs.8,400/- and the same has to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff on or before 29.08.1982 to the first respondent/defendant No.1. The petitioner/plaintiff has also paid the amount of Rs.8,400/- and requested the first respondent/defendant No.1 to execute the Sale Deed in his favour. Despite receiving the said amount from the petitioner/plaintiff, the first respondent/defendant No.1 failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Even before the sale, the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with his mother. Still the petitioner/plaintiff is continuously in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property even after the demise of his mother for the past five decades. While so, the first respondent/defendant No.1 attempted to dispose of the property hurriedly and entered into a Sale Agreement with the second respondent/defendant No.2. The said Sale Agreement was registered as Document No.5244 of 2009 dated 23.04.2009.
3.4. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.179 of 2014, the petitioner/plaintiff has stated that the suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendants. He further stated that his previous counsel by oversight mistake has wrongly added the following words in Prayer No.(a) as 'and not to evict
Amendment of the plaint after a significant delay and after the commencement of trial, which would change the nature of the suit, is not permissible.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are disallowed unless due diligence is proven by the petitioners.
Amendments to pleadings must not alter the nature of the suit and must be sought with due diligence, particularly before trial commencement; claims based on adverse possession are limited to a 12-yea....
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.
All necessary amendments for determining the real questions in controversy should be allowed, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Delay alone cannot be a ground to di....
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
