Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Vipin Kumar Bhargav - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Suman - Respondent - Respondent
CR-7710 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-08-2023
Amendment of Pleadings - Matrimonial Dispute - The court allowed the amendment of the plaint to clarify that the gift deed in question is a result of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, and to bring subsequent events to the notice of the court. The proposed amendment was deemed necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and was not found to cause any prejudice to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that a gift deed was illegal, null and void, and a result of fraud and misrepresentation, and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint to bring subsequent events to the notice of the court, which was contested by the respondent and declined by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment was necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and was not going to cause any prejudice to the respondent. The court allowed the amendment of the plaint and set aside the impugned order, subject to costs to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendment of the plaint, to bring subsequent events to the notice of the court, should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proposed amendment was required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and was not going to cause any prejudice to the respondent. The court referred to the circumstances under which a prayer for amendment of the pleadings could be declined, as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a relevant case.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the application for amendment of the plaint was allowed subject to costs to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit in an expeditious manner, preferably within the next one year.
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
CM-13076-CII-2023
Allowed as prayed for and documents Annexures R-5 to R-7 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Main case
This order will dispose of present revision petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against order dated 6.4.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that there was matrimonial dispute between the parties at the time of filing of the suit and at present, the respondent is residing in Australia. The petitioner filed suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged gift deed bearing Wasika No.18716 dated 22.11.2004 is illegal, null and void and is result of fraud and mis-representation and the same is not binding upon the rights of the petitioner in any manner and further, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property as detailed in the headnote of the plaint.
3. The suit has been contested by the respondent.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint in order to clarify that the gift deed in question is result of fraud, mis-representation and executed by the petitioner under undue influence and that even after execution of the said gift deed, the respondent abandoned the petitioner and that later on, the petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and the same was allowed vide ex parte decree dated 13.2.2010 and that the respondent has shifted to Australia and got re-married with one Amandeep Singh.
5. Said application for amendment of the plaint was contested by the respondent and it was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 6.4.2017.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for just decision of the case; that subsequent events which the petitioner intends to bring to the notice of the learned trial Court by way of amendment are required to establish the act and conduct of the respondent who has already shifted to Australia and got re-married. So, prayer is made that the present petition as well as proposed amendment be allowed.
8. Present petition is resisted by the counsel for the respondent who submits that the facts with regard to alleged fraud, mis-representation and undue influence are already pleaded in the original plaint; that as far as subsequent events are concerned, the learned trial Court could take judicial notice of the same at the relevant time. So, prayer is made that the application for amendment of the plaint which was filed at belated stage was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
10. Counsel for the respondent is unable to show that with the proposed amendment, the nature of the civil suit is going to be changed or that the proposed amendment is time barred or that the same if allowed would prejudice the rights of the respondent or is even otherwise barred under law. In the given circumstances, the proposed amendment cannot be disallowed just on the ground that it has been sought at a belated stage by the petitioner. On the other hand, this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and the same is not going to cause any prejudice to the respondent. Further by the very proposed amendment, the petitioner is not seeking to withdraw any admission already made by him which confers right on the other party.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another; 2022 SCC Online SC 1128 has enumerated the circumstances wherein generally amendment is to be allowed and the situations under which prayer for amendment of the pleadings could be decli
The proposed amendment of the plaint to bring subsequent events to the notice of the court was allowed as it was deemed necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between ....
The trial court erred in denying amendment requests essential for proper case adjudication; the amendments were not mala fide and did not alter the core defense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for allowing or rejecting amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the necessity, bona fide nature, and pre....
Amendments of pleadings should not be allowed in a routine manner after the trial has commenced, and the party seeking the amendment must show that despite due diligence, the proposed amendment could....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of allowing amendments in pleadings when imperative for proper adjudication, filed bona fide, not causing prejudice to the other par....
Amendments to pleadings are permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC if they do not change the nature of the suit and are necessary for justice, even if filed after a delay.
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
