Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Tara Chand – Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Singh – Respondent
CMPMO No. 244 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Mr. Pranav Dhar
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kashyap
Amendments post-filing need due diligence shown; time-barred claims cannot be admitted.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Amendment sought after 11 years from filing of suit deemed not maintainable - Party must demonstrate due diligence when seeking amendments post commencement of trial - Court found prior application for amendment improperly allowed by Appellate Court. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Inadmissibility of amendments that seek time-barred reliefs - Preserving the integrity of litigation process is paramount, and negligence cannot be rewarded. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Appellate Court's permission for an amendment to a plaint filed 11 years after the original suit, arguing lack of due diligence by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court allowed the amendment due to claimed inadvertence.
Findings of Court:
The learned Appellate Court's allowance of the amendment was ruled unsustainable due to a failure to exercise due diligence and the likelihood of time-barred claims being introduced.
Issues: The main issue addressed was the propriety of granting an amendment regarding omitted claims and failure to demonstrate due diligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that amendments post-filing must not only be necessary but must comply with procedural requirements of due diligence, rejecting claims that are time-barred.
Result: Order allowing amendment set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed for amending a plaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the original suit and procedural history. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court finds flaws in the appellate court's reasoning. (Para 7 , 8) |
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents herein during the pendency of the appeal for the amendment of the plaint has been allowed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1 and submitted that it was simply mentioned therein that the appeal was pending before the learned Court and as at the time of
filing of the suit, the plaintiff due to inadvertent omission, could not claim recovery of earnest money of Rs. 90,000/-, therefore, the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint and he may be permitted to make an alternative prayer for recovery of Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest from the date of atgreement to sell, i.e. 02.12.2006. He further submitted that learned Appellate Court erred in allowing this application without appreciating that in the absence of the applicant demonstrating that the proposed amendment could not be incorporated initially despite due diligence, there was no occasion for the lea rned Appellate Court to have had allowed the amendment.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that as the proposed amendment was innocuous and as the same was necessitated on account on inadvertent omission, therefore, the act of the learned Appellate Court in allowing the application cannot be faulted with.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, including the impugned order.
5. Undisputed facts are that the respondent herein filed a Civil Suit for specific performance against the present petitioner in the year 2012. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on
20.07.2022. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2023. A perusal of the application demonstrates that all that is mentioned in para 3 thereof is that at the time of filing of the suit, tthe plaintiff due to inadvertent omission has not claimed the recovery of earnest money, i.e. Rs. 90,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint on this count by adding the prayer as mentioned in the application.
6. In terms of the impugned order, this prayer has been allowe d by the learned Appellate Court by inter alia holding that as the proposed amendment in the alternate was by way of an amendment in the reliefs prayed for by the applicant/plaintiff and as the same would certainly help the Court in deciding the controversy and would not change the nature of the suit between the parties, therefore, the same can be allowed. Learned Court also held that as far as the issue of the claim being time-barred, as appeal was in continuation of the suit, therefore, as the main relief prayed for was within limitation, the ancillary relief was also to be construed within limitation.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In terms of the provisions of the Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all amendments, which are necessary for the adjudication of the case, can be allowed by the Court at any stage. However, in terms of the proviso added thereto, it is clear that in case the proposetd amendment is sought after the co
