Amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC that do not alter the suit's nature, and are timely made, are permissible.

Order on Board

22/01/2025

1. The plaintiff/petitioner have filed this petition challenging therein order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2022 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.), whereby an application moved by defendants No. 1 to 4 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was allowed.

2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration for joint ownership, partition, permanent injunction and separate possession of suit property, situated at Village Hedaspur, Patwari Circle No. 14, Tehsil Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara (C.G.).

3. The defendants No. 1 to 4 filed their written statement.

4. The learned trial Court framed issues and case was set for evidence of the parties. At this stage, defendants moved an applications under Order 8 Rule (1) (A) of CPC on 17.01.2024; under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 16.02.2024; under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 16.02.2024; under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 13.03.2024 and under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) of CPC on 13.03.2024. The learned trial Court allowed first and second applications with cost of Rs.200/-. The third application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 was rejected. Another application moved under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) of CPC was rejected, whereas application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 was allowed. In the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the plaintiff impleaded parties to the suit in written statement and counter claim, made prayer to insert word counter claim alongwith its valuation and court fees. Defendants No. 1 to 4 further proposed to insert the fact that Mukund Singh @ Lalaram Patel died on 21.10.2020 and possession of the suit land mentioned in counter claim was forcibly taken by the plaintiff in the year 2021. In para-6, defendants No. 1 to 4 proposed amendment with regard to valuation of counter claim, court fees and in prayer clause, they sought relief for declaration of ownership and possession.

5. The plaintiff opposed the applications.

6. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the amendment proposed by defendants No. 1 to 4 would not change the nature of suit, allowed it with cost of Rs.500/-.

7. Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner would submit that the application for amendment was moved at belated stage, it will change the nature of the suit and the application was moved to delay the trial, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have rejected the application for amendment.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Ku. Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No. 9/State would oppose.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

10. Taking into consideration the fact that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC moved by defendants No. 1 to 4 would not change the nature of the suit, it was moved before recording of evidence of the witnesses and the learned trial Court has granted liberty to the plaintiff to move application for conseqential amendment and further the amendment proposed by defendants No. 1 to 4 appears to be proper. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed