Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11230
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
P JAYAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SMT ANNAPORNA – Respondent
WP 7341/2024
SRI.G.DATTA PRASAD, SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SRI. H.S.SUHAS
Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they do not cause prejudice to the other party and serve the interest of justice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 - Partition suit - Applications for amendment of plaint allowed by trial court - Plaintiff seeks to amend claim from 1/3rd to half share after mother's death - Prior memo of relinquishment contested as made without knowledge - Court allows amendments, ensuring defendant can raise defenses - No prejudice caused to defendant. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Legal principles on amendments - Amendments should not be denied if they do not cause prejudice to the other party and allow for a fair trial. (Paras 4)
(C) Trial court's discretion - The court retains the authority to permit amendments to ensure justice is served without compromising the rights of the parties involved. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition, later sought to amend her claim over certain properties after previously relinquishing rights through a memo. The defendant opposed the amendments citing prior relinquishment.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no prejudice to the defendant and allowed the amendments, stating the defendant could still raise defenses.
Issues: The court addressed whether the plaintiff could amend her claim after a previous relinquishment and the implications of the amendments on the defendant's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that amendments should be allowed if they do not prejudice the other party and ensure a fair trial, affirming the trial court's discretion in allowing the amendments.
Result: Petition disposed of without interference with the impugned order.
This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.2788/2011 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 whereby the applications, I.A.10, 11, 13 and 14 filed by respondent/plaintiff were allowed by the trial court by passing the impugned order which is assailed in the present petition.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties.
On 24.08.2023, the respondent/plaintiff filed a memo purporting to give up her claim over the Sy.No.59, 133/6B, 134/1B and 170/1 described in the schedule to the plaint.
Subsequently, respondent/plaintiff has filed the instant applications seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating the said properties, which were said to be given up in the aforesaid memo.
The said applications having been opposed by the petitioner/defendant, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the applications by holding as under:
- “Heard the learned counsels for the Plaintiff and Defendants on I.A.No.10, 11, 13, 14 and memo dated 28.02.2023. ORDERS ON I.A.No.10, 11, 13 and 14 The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has filed I. A.No.10 U/o 6 Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to substitute paragraph 1, add paragraph 9(a) and to substitute prayer seeking the half share in the place of 1/3rd share as claimed in the Plaint.
- The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.11 U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the schedule by including the boundaries of the schedule.
- The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.13 U/s 151 of CPC to recall the order passed by this Court dated 24.08.2013. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.14 U/s 151 of CPC seeking permission to withdraw the memo filed on 24.08.2013. All the above said I.As are supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff. Wherein it is submitted by the Plaintiff that he has filed this suit for the relief of Partition, he was entitled for 1/3rd share. After the demise of her mother on 24.11.2014 he is entitled for half share. The said suit was Decreed Exparte by this Court and now by virtue of Orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.4402/2022, the suit is now Restored. Further in support of I.A.No.11, in the affidavit filed by the Plaintiff, it is stated that boundaries of the suit schedule property was not mentioned properly and as now the suit is Restored, the Plaintiff is intends to add the boundaries.
- In the affidavit in support of I.A.No.13 and 14, it is stated by the Plaintiff that she was not aware of the contents of memo dated 24.08.2013 filed by her previous Counsel before the Court and without her knowledge, such memo was filed before the Court to delete the properties in Survey No.59, Survey No.133/6-B, Survey No.134/1-B and Survey No.171 which was included in the schedule of the Plaint, hence she had lodged complaint against previous Counsel before the Karnataka State Bar Council in Complaint No. C-45/21. Hence prayed to allow both I.A.No.13 and 14 and permit her to recall the order of acceptance of memo dated 24.08.2013 and permit the Plaintiff to withdraw the memo of the said date.
- The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has also filed a memo on 28.02.2023 stating that in view of setting aside the Judgment passed Exparte by this Court in MFA No.4402/2022, hence intends to withdraw the memo dated 24.08.2013 which was filed due to inadvertence and wrong address.
- The learned counsel for Defendant filed objections to all the above said I.As. In the Statement of objection to I.A.No.10, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Defendant that application is filed with delay of 8 years in FDP No.10/2016, the Plaintiff had sought for similar relief and the same was rejected by the Court and the Plaintiff has not made out a case for granting half s
