Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 24008
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. SUJANA, J
Safiya Sulthana – Appellant
Versus
Thallapalli Ashamma DIED PER LRS R4 AND R5 – Respondent
CRP/524/2024
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be allowed at any stage, provided they do not alter the fundamental nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the other party.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Civil Revision Petitions - Petitioners sought to amend plaint to declare title and nullify documents as void - Trial Court dismissed the petitions citing belated filing and absence of due diligence - Petitioners argued for the necessity of amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation. (Paras 3, 5, 14)
(B) Amendment of Pleadings - The court has discretion to allow amendments at any stage, provided they do not alter the fundamental nature of the suit and do not cause prejudice to the other side - Mere delay does not automatically bar amendments if they serve to resolve the real controversy. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a suit seeking injunction against interference with property, later seeking to amend the plaint after the trial commenced, which was opposed by respondents.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no merit in the petitioners' claims for amendment, citing the belated nature of the application and lack of diligence in pursuing the amendment earlier.
Issues: The main issues included whether the amendment sought was permissible after the trial commenced and whether it would change the nature of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that amendments may be allowed if they do not alter the basic nature of the suit and do not prejudice the other party; however, the petitioners failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking the amendment.
Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.259 and 260 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2017, respectively, by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.
3. The brief facts of the cases are that petitioners who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.18 of 2017 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. During the course of trial, petitioners filed I.A.Nos.259 and 260 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , to reopen the suit and amend the plaint. This amendment was sought to declare title and perpetual injunction, and to nullify certain documents, including a simple sale deed, ROR proceedings, a registered partition deed, and a gift settlement deed, as void and non-binding on the plaintiffs.
4. The respondents there in filed counter denying the averments of petition and as the evidence was closed on behalf of both sides, and coming for arguments, petitioners took several adjournments and the petitions are filed only to drag on the matter. The amendment without any cause of action is not permissible, as such, requested the trial Court to dismiss the petitions.
5. However, the Court below after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petitions on 29.01.2024, observing that since suit is coming up for arguments from 12.12.2023 and several adjournments were taken, the petition to reopen the suit and amendment of plaint is filed. Amendment petition has to be filed before commencement of trial, whereas it is filed at the belated stage. Challenging the said dismissal order, petitioners filed the present civil revision petitions.
6. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri K. Sai Sruthin Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of Court below is illegal, contrary to law, facts, evidence, and probabilities. He further submitted that the Court below erred in not allowing the petitioners to amend the nature of suit under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C, which permits amendments at any stage and by dismissing the petition, the Court below overlooked the bona fide attempt of the petitioners to avoid multiple suits. He further submitted that the title of petitioners was disputed by the respondents, necessitating an amendment to seek declaration and cancellation of deeds for proper adjudication which will reduce multiplicity of litigation.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that law permits amendments at any stage, and the proposed changes are essential to resolve the title dispute. He further submitted that denying amendment would force the petitioners to file a separate suit leading to unnecessary litigation. Therefore, reopening the case is inevitable to permit necessary amendments, as such, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders dated 29.01.2024 by allowing these civil revision petitions.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh ,
“ 5 . As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the cour
