Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10812 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30324 of 2019)
Decided On : 24-09-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – Partition suit – Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, same cannot be in contravention of statutory boundaries placed on such power – Plaintiff filed application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of her plaint to add list of movable properties in property sought to be partitioned as part of suit, as also questioned genuineness of Will – If there is a Will, it has to be honoured – If one of parties, who will be affected by Will coming into effect, challenges it on one ground or other, process of succession cannot go forward without determination of dispute regarding Will – Without determination of question of Will and its genuineness, partition of suit property would not be possible – Object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation, subsumed under umbrella of one dispute – Amendment allowed – Trial Court shall decide all issues including genuineness of Will, expeditiously. (Paras 4.5, 11.1, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Limited question that arises for consideration is whether High Court committed an error in allowing amendment to plaint filed by the present respondents.
Findings of Court:
Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine fate of a suit.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, but such amendments cannot contravene statutory boundaries or legal limits on the power to amend (!) (!) .
The primary purpose of amendments is to determine the "real questions of controversy" between the parties and to facilitate effective and proper adjudication of the dispute (!) (!) (!) .
Amendments should generally be allowed unless they cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, such as causing delay, being malafide, or changing the fundamental nature of the suit (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Specific factors to consider include whether the amendment seeks to rectify material deficiencies, introduces new evidence or approach, or questions the validity of critical documents like a Will (!) (!) .
The timing of the amendment is significant; amendments sought after the commencement of trial require demonstration that due diligence was exercised and that the amendment is necessary for just adjudication (!) (!) .
In cases involving the validity of a Will, it is essential to determine its genuineness before proceeding with related issues like succession or partition of property (!) (!) .
Delay in seeking amendments should not be used to deny justice, especially if the amendment is crucial for resolving the core dispute, such as the genuineness of a Will (!) (!) .
The overarching principle is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and multiple avenues of litigation by allowing amendments that aid in a comprehensive and final resolution of the dispute (!) (!) .
The appellate authority emphasized that even if amendments are sought late, they should be considered favorably if they serve the interests of justice and do not cause undue prejudice (!) .
The order allowing the amendment was upheld, and the trial court was instructed to decide all issues, including the genuineness of the Will, expeditiously. The discussion was limited to procedural aspects concerning the amendment, with no opinion expressed on the case's merits (!) .
These points encapsulate the principles and considerations relevant to amendments of pleadings, especially in cases involving disputes over wills and property, emphasizing a balanced, justice-oriented approach within statutory limits.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2. Impugned in this appeal is a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, passed in M.P. No.1695 of 2018 dated 21st August, 2019. The application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,1[‘CPC’ for short], by respondent No.1,2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’] was allowed setting aside order dated 14th March, 2018 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.241-A/2016, whereby such application stood rejected.
3. The limited question that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the amendment to the plaint filed by the present respondents.
4. The facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, as necessary for disposal of the present appeal are:-
4.1 The appellant,3[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’] and respondents, are siblings being children of Smt. Katoribai. The dispute relates to House No.27/1695, renumbered as 1695/1804 situated at Gangamai Santar, Murar, District Gwalior, M.P.,4[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’], which was purchased by way of registered sale deed dated 1st January, 1987.
4.2 On 14th January, 2013 Smt. Katoribai, executed a Will and thereby bequeathed the suit property to the defendant herein. She subsequently passed away on 5th March, 2013. As per the defendant, the respondents recognised the Will and acted in furtherance thereof by way of agreements dated 20th December and 28th December, 2014.
4.3 Smt. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), the plaintiff filed a suit bearing No.241-A/2016 before 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Gwalior (M.P.), claiming 1/5th share in the suit property by stating that the same belonged to their father late Shri Gyan Chand Goyal. The defendant filed a written statement on 25th July, 2016 praying that the suit be dismissed in view of the Will executed by Smt. Katoribai.
4.4 Pursuant to an application dated 28th July, 2016 filed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking the production of the Will as well as the Agreements, the defendant produced the same. A temporary injunction was also ordered barring any creation of the third-party rights.
4.5 Mutation in favour of the defendant was carried out in the relevant records. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of her plaint to add a list of movable properties in the property sought to be partitioned as part of the suit, as also questioned the genuineness of the Will. On 26th October, 2017 leave was sought to withdraw the said application. However, a fresh application was filed the same day, along with an application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 CPC asking the defendant to adduce evidence at the first instance.
4.6 By order dated 14th March, 2018, the amendment application as also the application under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order a miscellaneous writ petition under Article 227 being M.P.No.1695 of 2018 was preferred by the plaintiff.
4.7. By order dated 21st August, 2019 the High Court vide the impugned, allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
5. Hence the present appeal.
6. Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under :-
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
What can be understood from a reading of the above provision is that, (a) amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any
(1) Amendment of plaint – Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, same cannot be in contravention of statutory boundaries placed on such power.(2) Will –....
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to ensure effective adjudication of the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other si....
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 VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for justice and do not change the nature of the suit.
Rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and would conscious and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties ....
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.
Amendments to pleadings in partition suits should be liberally allowed to ensure justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, without assessing the merits of the amendment at the initial stage.
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
