Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 582
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
DAMODARA PANCIKAR – Appellant
Versus
LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA @ LEKSHMI AMMA – Respondent
OP(C) 2153/2023
RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW, K. RAJESH KANNAN
Amendments to pleadings are permissible when new facts are discovered that affect the case's outcome, even if they were uncovered after the trial commenced.
Headnote:
Amendment - Written Statement - Order VII, Rule 14; Order VI, Rule 17 - The court clarified that amendments to written statements can be allowed if new facts are discovered that are essential to the case, and the failure to produce relevant documents earlier can justify the amendment.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants sought to amend their written statement after the plaintiffs introduced a title deed in court. The original deed was not produced at the time of filing the plaint, causing confusion and disadvantage for the defendants who denied its validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants were not at fault for the delay in seeking amendment, which was caused by the plaintiffs' failure to produce the title deed. It also concluded that the proposed amendment was not inconsistent with prior pleadings.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' application to amend their written statement on grounds of delay and inconsistency with previous pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: Inconsistent pleas can be raised in a written statement, and amendments to include newly discovered facts are permissible if they help in resolving the real issues in the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and allowed the amendment application.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023 The petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.420/2015 of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. They are aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, which refused Ext.P5 application for amendment of the written statement.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, despite a specific title being claimed in the plaint on the strength of a sale deed of the year 1971 (Sale Deed no. 1922/1971), the same was not produced along with the plaint, contrary to the mandate of Order VII, Rule 14. Nor was any explanation offered by the plaintiffs in not producing the said title deed along with plaint. The petitioners/defendats filed Ext.P2 written statement without having the advantage of perusing the title deed claimed by the plaintiffs, wherein, they have denied the sanctity of the said title deed, contending that, such a document, as claimed by the plaintiffs, has never come into force and that the defendants have not received any consideration for the same. It was also contended that the document was got registered in favour of the plaintiffs only as a security for a family arrangement and it was not intended to be acted upon as a sale deed. Learned counsel would explain that, the defendants were constrained to take such an imprecise contention, only because of the disadvantage of not perusing the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs, since it was not produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint, or subsequently.
4. Learned counsel then submitted that, the plaint was amended twice. Initially, there was an amendment to the schedule. Thereafter, substantial amendments were incorporated to the pleadings as well, as could be seen from Ext.P3 amended plaint. On that occasion also, the plaintiffs did not choose to produce the title deed relied upon. To the amended Ext.P3 plaint, the defendants/petitioners filed Ext.P4 additional written statement. The matter was thereafter listed for trial and the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW 1, through whom, a certified copy of the title deed was marked. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW 2, at which point of time, the original title deed of the plaintiff was produced for the first time and the same was marked through PW 2. Learned counsel would point out that, such document was produced without obtaining any leave from the court, as enjoined by Order VII, Rule 14. Thereafter, the plaintiffs' evidence was closed and before commencement of the defendants evidence, the defendants filed Ext.P5 I.A., seeking amendment to the written statement, to incorporate an additional pleading to the effect that signature contained in the title deed is not that of the 1st defendant. Ext.P6 is the objection preferred by the plaintiffs to the said interlocutory application. Ext.P5 application for amendment was dismissed vide the impugned Ext.P7 order by the Court below, essentially on two grounds, that is to say, that the pleadings sought to be amended are inconsistent with the pre- existing pleadings; and secondly, delay. In the afore referred facts and circumstances, Ext.P7 order is bad in law, warranting interference by this Court, is the final submission of the learned counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that, two documents were executed on the same day consecutively, the 1st by one Gopinatha Panickar in favour of the 1st defendant, vide Sale deed no.1923/1971; followed by a sale deed bearing no.1922/1971 by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel would emphatically submit that, the execution of the document is categorically admitted by the 1st defendant in the written statement, especially in paragraph no.14. All what the defendant contented was that the document was not intended to be acted upon and that the same was executed towards security for a family arrangement etc. The execution per se was not denied, whe
