Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
A. Ramakrishnan (Died) and Others – Petitioners
Versus
P. Mani and Others – Respondents
C.R.P. (MD) No. 82 of 2020, C.M.P. (MD) No. 400 of 2020
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Amendment of Prayer - Civil Revision Petition - Order 6, Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C - The court discussed the necessity of amendment of prayer to avoid future litigation and resolve the actual dispute between the parties once for all. The court referred to the liberal consideration required for amendment of pleadings and emphasized the need to put an end to future litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents sought to amend the prayer in a suit to add an alternate relief of declaration of title cum injunction. The petitioners objected, citing delay and lack of bona fides.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment application was rightly allowed by the trial court, emphasizing the need to resolve the actual dispute between the parties once for all and put an end to future litigation.
Issues: The main issue was the necessity and timing of the amendment of prayer, with the petitioners alleging delay and lack of bona fides.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment of pleadings should be considered liberally to avoid future litigation and resolve the actual dispute between the parties once for all.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order allowing the amendment application was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.10.2019 made in I.A. No. 463 of 2018 in O.S. No. 45 of 2013 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 16.10.2019 passed in I.A. No. 463 of 2018 in O.S. No. 28 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Kovilpatti. The said application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of prayer by adding an alternate relief of declaration of title cum injunction.
2. The original prayer in the suit was to set aside certain registered documents and other documents. From the perusal of the plaint and the averments therein, it is seen that respondent/plaintiffs has claimed title over the subject property and thereby sought setting aside of certain documents executed among the defendants. The said application was allowed by the learned Trail court on the ground that the same is necessary in order to resolve the dispute between the parties once for all, and to avoid future litigations. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on an earlier occasion the espondents/plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 104 of 2007 seeking to declare certain registered documents documents as null and void without seeking cancellation of the said documents. Therefore, the said suit was dismissed for want of seeking cancellation of the said documents. As against the same, the respondents plaintiffs have preferred A.S. No. 13 of 2012 on the file the Appellate court, and during the pendency of the said appeal they filed I.A. No. 160 of 2012, seeking permission to withdraw O.S. No. 104 of 2007 with liberty to file a fresh suit seeking cancellation of the registered documents within a period of 2 months. Liberty as sought for was granted by an order dated 30.01.2013 and consequently, the respondent/plaintiffs have filed a suit on 28.03.2013 within two months, seeking cancellation of the certain registered documents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners after elapse of five years, the respondents/ plaintiffs have filed the present application seeking amendment of the prayer. The same was objected to on the ground that the liberty that was granted by the Lower Appellate Court in the previous round of litigation is only to file a suit within a period of two months. But the present application is filed after lapse of five years and therefore the same cannot be entertained. It is also also further contented that the present application is intended only to delay the suit proceedings without any bona-fides.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that immediately after the commencement of trial, the respondent/plaintiffs realised that it would be in the better interest of the respondents/plaintiffs to seek an alternative prayer of declaration of title as well and accordingly an application in I.A. No. 463 of 2018 under Or.6 R.17 r/w Sec.151 C.P.C was filed and the same was rightly allowed by the trial court. It is also contented that once the issue as to the entitlement of the respondents/plaintiffs to seek declaration of title is decided, the dispute will be settled between the parties once for all and there would not be any scope for future litigation.
5. This court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials on record including the order under revision.
6. The learned trial court having taken note of the fact that the issue can be decided between the parties once for all to avoid future litigations allowed the amendment application. It is settled law that any application filed under Or.6 R.17 seeking amendment of the pleadings is required to be considered liberally in order to put an end to the future litig
Amendments to the plaint should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or prejudice the defendants.
Amendment of plaint – All amendments which are necessary for determination of real question in controversy between parties are required to be allowed, unless proposed amendment has propensity to caus....
Point of law: High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may allow an amendment if it is imperative for proper adjudication of the case, and to avoid injustice and multiplicity of litigatio....
The court emphasized the importance of doing substantial justice, the need for due diligence in seeking amendments after the commencement of the trial, and the limited jurisdiction of the court in al....
Timely applications in civil proceedings are crucial, but delays can be excused if justified, with the court retaining discretion to impose conditions.
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
