Plaintiff is Master of Lis; Belated Amendments to Elaborate Pleadings Disallowed as Delay Tactic: Rajasthan High Court on Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - 2025-10-10

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea to Amend Written Statement, Cites Delay Tactics and 'Master of Lis' Doctrine

Jodhpur, Rajasthan - The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent order, dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court's refusal to allow an amendment to a written statement, underscoring that such applications filed at the culmination of a trial are delay tactics and that the plaintiff is the "master of the lis" (master of the suit).

Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the Jodhpur Bench, upheld the decision of the Civil Judge, Nathdwara, finding no reason to interfere with the order that rejected the defendant's plea filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from an ejectment suit (Civil Original Suit No. 40/2016) filed by the respondent, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, against the petitioner, Shrilal. Smt. Bhagwati Devi sought the eviction of Shrilal from a property she claimed to have purchased in 2014, alleging an oral tenancy agreement.

Shrilal, the defendant, contested the suit by denying the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship. He asserted his right to possession based on a 1986 agreement with the previous owner, to whom he had allegedly paid a significant sum. He also challenged the validity of Smt. Bhagwati Devi's ownership.

As the trial neared its conclusion, Shrilal filed an application to amend his written statement. The proposed amendments sought to further elaborate on the absence of tenancy, the non-joinder of the previous owner (Banshilal) as a necessary party, and allegations of fact concealment by the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed this application on August 8, 2024, prompting the current writ petition.

Arguments in the High Court

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment, as Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is intended to ensure just decisions. He contended that the issue of non-joinder of a necessary party was crucial to the suit's maintainability and was wrongly overlooked.

Conversely, the respondent's counsel opposed the petition, supporting the trial court's reasoning.

Court’s Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Arun Monga's judgment rested on two fundamental legal principles: the plaintiff's prerogative in a suit and the procedural bar on belated amendments.

1. Plaintiff as 'Master of the Lis'

The Court firmly reiterated the established legal position that a plaintiff has the discretion to choose whom to sue. It observed:

"It is settled position that the plaintiff is the master of the lis and it is for him to see as to whom he wants to sue or proceed against and the defendant cannot decide it on behalf of the plaintiff."

The court noted that the defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to implead a party unless that party is indispensable under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Justice Monga pointed out that the defendant was free to summon the previous owner as a witness to support his case, making his impleadment as a party non-essential.

2. Delay and Lack of Due Diligence

The Court heavily criticized the timing of the amendment application, viewing it as a strategic delay. Justice Monga highlighted the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which states that no amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party proves that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence.

The judgment stated:

"I am of the view that such an application should have been filed at the very threshold of the suit proceedings and not when the entire trial is almost at the culmination stage and therefore, it is nothing but a delay tactic... Herein, no such explanation has been/ was provided."

The Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any "due diligence" that would justify the belated request.

Final Decision

Finding no prejudice to the defendant—since his core contentions were already on record and could be proven through evidence and cross-examination—the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the trial court's well-reasoned order, thereby preventing a potential delay in the resolution of the long-pending suit.