Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Ganesh Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Rajeshwar Prasad and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1699 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 28377 of 2018
Decided On : 14-03-2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – Courts should be liberal in allowing applications for leave to amend pleadings but Courts must bear in mind statutory limitations brought about by CPC – Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend plaint, written statement or file additional written statement, subject to exception that by proposed amendment, opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of other party is not but wrong – All amendments of pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of real controversies in suit provided that proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action. (Paras 33 and 37)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to pleadings – Plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas while seeking alternative reliefs – If pleas sought to be introduced by plaintiff by way of amendment is also plea which defendant has set up in his written statement and such plea of plaintiff is an alternative plea, even though it is inconsistent with original plea, since there is no prejudice caused to defendant, Court is not precluded from allowing amendment. (Paras 38, 43 and 47)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule 9 – Bar on fresh suit – Cause of action in a suit has no reference to defence taken in suit, nor is it related to evidence by which that cause of action is established – In case cause of action in later suit was altogether different, which has nothing to do with cause of action in earlier suit, statutory bar has no application to such later suits – Everything depends upon cause of action and in case subsequent cause of action arose from a totally different bunch of facts, such suit cannot be axed by taking shelter to provision of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC – Cause of action must be distinguished from evidence upon which, that cause of action is proved and though one has no relation to other, still nature of cause of action may be indicated by nature of evidence by which it is supported – If evidence to support two claims is different then causes of action are also different. (Paras 52, 56, 58 and 60)
(D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 60 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule 9 – Redemption of mortgage – If right of redemption is not extinguished, provision like Order IX Rule 9 of CPC will not debar mortgagor from filing a second suit because as in a partition suit, cause of action in a redemption suit is a recurring one – Cause of action in each successive action, until right of redemption is extinguished or a suit for redemption is time barred, is a different one. (Para 62)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is at the instance of the Original Defendant of Suit No. 154 of 2009 instituted by Plaintiffs for possession of the suit property upon redemption of mortgage and is directed against order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 04.07.2018 in the Civil Miscellaneous W.P. 1346 of 2015, thereby affirming the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 25.02.2015, permitting the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint under provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
Findings of Court:
Trial court shall now proceed to take up the Suit No. 154 of 2009 for hearing and dispose of the same at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from today. It shall be open for both sides to raise all legal contentions available to them in law.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as ‘the Original Defendant or Defendant’ and the respondents herein shall be referred to as, the Original Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs.
3. This appeal is at the instance of the Original Defendant of Suit No. 154 of 2009 instituted by the Plaintiffs in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Eastern, District Ballia for possession of the suit property upon redemption of mortgage and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 04.07.2018 in the Civil Miscellaneous W.P. No. 1346 of 2015, thereby affirming the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 25.02.2015, permitting the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’).
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The subject matter of the civil suit is a property in the form of a Shop in Block No. 2-5, A. No. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 situated at Chowk, City Ballia, Pargana and District Ballia. The Plaintiffs claim to be the lawful owners of the suit property. It is the case of the Defendant that the father of the Plaintiffs had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the father of the Defendant in respect of 1/3rd portion of the suit property described above and was put in possession of the shop. Thus, according to the Defendant, the father of the Plaintiffs was the mortgagor and his father was the mortgagee. The said registered mortgage deed is said to have been executed on 12.02.1957.
5. From 1957 till 2005, the mortgagee continued to remain in possession of the suit property as neither the mortgage money was paid nor the mortgage was redeemed and upon lapse of 30 years’ time period, the mortgagor’s right in the mortgaged property stood extinguished in terms of Article 61A of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘Act 1963’). Sometime in the year 2005, the father of the Defendant i.e. the mortgagee, namely, Shree Gulab Chand died.
6. On 15.03.2007, the Plaintiffs instituted, the Small Cause Suit No. 3 of 2007 against the Appellant Defendant herein and four others in the Court of Small Causes Judge (Senior Division) for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit property i.e. the shop and the same had been let out to the father of the Appellant Defendant herein and after the demise of the father of the Defendant, he stopped paying the rent to the Plaintiffs and illegally inducted defendant Nos. 2 to 5 resply as subtenants in the shop in question. Thus, the Plaintiffs prayed for a decree of possession of the shop.
7. The following reliefs were prayed for in the Small Cause Suit No. 3 of 2007 instituted by the Plaintiffs:
“(A) Decree for eviction from the said shop as given in detail below boundary in favour of Plaintiffs against the Defendants may be passed and if they do not vacate within period ordered by the Court then it may be vacated through Court and possession thereof may be given to us the Plaintiffs.
(B) Decree for payment of 4500/- Rupees as given in detail below against Defendants and in favour of Plaintiffs may be passed.
(C) That 500/- Rupees damages decree during pendency of suit may be passed against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiffs.
(D) Costs of the suit may be directed to be paid by the Defendants to us the Plaintiffs. Apart from these reliefs if Plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief in the Court's opinion that may also be decreased in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants.”
8. In the aforesaid Suit No. 3 of 2007, the Appellant Defendant filed his written statement denying the entire case put up by the Plaintiffs and further stating that the father of the Plaintiffs had executed a mortgage deed dated 12.02.1957 in respect of the suit property and i.e. how the father of the Defendant was
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court has the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided it does not cause injustice or p....
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Amendments altering the fundamental nature of a case are impermissible; evidence must align with pleadings for consideration in civil litigation.
Point of Law : In case there is no proper pleading to support the relief as claimed in petition, then respondent has no opportunity to resist or oppose such relief, and if court considers and grant s....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are permissible if they do not change the fundamental character of the suit and aim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
