Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Jagjit Singh - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Jasmer Singh and others - Respondents - Respondent
CR 6484 of 2017
Decided On : 05-05-2023
AMENDMENT - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - The court discussed the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which allows the court to permit either party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. The court highlighted the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, which restricts the allowance of an amendment after the trial has commenced, unless the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and the necessity for the proposed amendment to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The court also referred to relevant judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition and for a declaration that a sale deed in favor of the defendants was wrong and illegal. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement after the trial had commenced. The plaintiff challenged the allowance of the amendment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial had commenced before the defendants filed the amendment application. The court held that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence and their reasons for seeking the amendment did not constitute sufficient cause. The court emphasized that the proposed amendment was an afterthought and did not relate to the real issue at hand. The court also noted that the defendants' case did not meet the parameters laid down by the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC and relevant judgments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendants' amendment application after the trial had commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which restricts the allowance of an amendment after the trial has commenced, unless the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and the necessity for the proposed amendment to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's revision petition and set aside the trial court's order allowing the defendants' amendment application.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of order dated 13.7.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura whereby the application filed by the defendants no.6 and 7/ respondents no.6 and 7 herein, under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) read with Section 151 CPC, for amendment of their written statement, has been allowed.
2. Brief facts involved in the present revision petition are that the petitioner/ plaintiff had filed the instant suit (Annexure P-1), for separate possession by way partition; and for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 30.7.1997 in favour of defendants no. 6 to 8/ respondents no. 6 to 8 herein, is wrong, illegal and nullity qua the rights of the plaintiff.
3. Upon notice, the contesting defendants no. 6 and 7/respondents no.6 and 7 herein appeared and filed their joint written statement on 18.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the ld. Trial Court framed the issues on 3.11.2014 and the petitioner concluded his entire evidence by January 2017; and defendant evidence commenced.
4. However, thereafter, on 03.07.2017 defendants no. 6 & 7 filed present application U/O 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the written statement filed by them on 18.2.2014. Vide the proposed amendment, the Defendants no. 6 & 7 sought to add preliminary objections no. 6 to 9 after the preliminary objections no. 1 to 5 taken in the earlier written statement, and further sought addition of a full para in para 5 and para 8 of the ‘Reply on Merits’ in the written statement dated 18.02.2014.
5. On 12.07.2017, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the reply to the application, and the case was adjourned to 13.07.2017 for consideration on the application and for defendants' evidence.
6. On 13.07.2017, the application U/O 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by defendant nos. 6 & 7 was allowed. Hence, present Revision Petition.
7. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the case was at the stage of defendants’ evidence when the instant application (Annexure P-3) was filed by respondents 6 and 7 herein for amendment of their written statement (Annexure P-2).
8. It is submitted that the ld. Trial Court framed the issues on 3.11.2014 and the petitioner concluded his entire evidence by January 2017. Thereafter, the defendants examined DW2-Sachidanand on 10.04.2017, and DW1-Bal Krishan on 17.04.2017, and the case was posted for 28.04.2017 for the remaining evidence of the defendants. On 28.04.2017, defendants no. 6 & 7 engaged another lawyer namely Sh. Amit Jain who filed power of attorney on their behalf. On that day, DW4-Satnam Singh tendered his affidavit in his examination-in-chief and his cross-examination was deferred, and the case was adjourned to 01.05.2017. Case was further adjourned to 08.05.2017. On 08.05.2017, DW3-Sanjay Singh and DW4-Satnam Singh were examined. DW-5 Hardial Singh tendered his affidavit in his examination-in-chief and his cross-examination was deferred and the case was posted for 15.05.2017. On 15.05.2017, the case was posted for 18.05.2017 and from 18.05.2017 to 22.05.2017 and from 22.05.2017 to 03.07.2017.
9. It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that therefore, in the present case the trial had already commenced and, after commencement of trial, ld. Trial Court could not have allowed the amendment application filed by respondents no. 6 and 7 as it was not maintainable. It is submitted that perusal of the application (Annexure P-3) filed by respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC shows that even the grounds taken by the said respondents are spurious and flimsy. It is contended that the ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that even no due diligence has been exercised by the respondents no. 6 and 7 as required under law. It is submitted that perusal of the record shows that none of the pleas as taken by respondents no. 6 and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial, as well as the purpose of the amendment to cu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence, as contained in the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, and the factors necessary to be considered while decidin....
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.
The court emphasized that amendments to Written Statements should be allowed liberally, especially when the suit is at an early stage, correcting the Trial Court's misapplication of res judicata prin....
Amendments to pleadings post-trial require showing of due diligence, and must not alter the fundamental nature of the case, or cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.
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
