Covering Law & Justice.

Rejection of Amendment Under O. 6 R. 17 CPC Not Appealable Under S. 299 Indian Succession Act: High Court Rules

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

A recent judgment by the High Court has clarified the scope of appealability under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically holding that an order rejecting an application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not appealable under this section.

Case Background

The matter arose from an appeal challenging an order dated December 22, 2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh. The original proceeding before the District Judge was a petition filed under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking the grant of letters of administration (Case No. M.N.R./203/2014, Indra Bahadur Yadav vs. Harkhas Aam & others).

During the pendency of this petition, the appellant (the original petitioner) filed an application to amend the plaint. The proposed amendment reportedly aimed to simply add the date of the will, June 4, 1996. The District Judge dismissed this amendment application, leading the appellant to file the instant appeal before the High Court.

The Legal Question

The central question before the High Court was whether an appeal lies under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against an order passed by the District Judge rejecting an amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appellant contended that Section 299 of the Act makes every order passed by the District Judge in proceedings under Section 278 appealable to the High Court.

Court's Analysis

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions:

• Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section states that "Every order made by a District Judge by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals."
• Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule provides a specific list of orders from which an appeal lies under Section 104 of the CPC.
• Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section mandates that if a proceeding under Section 278 (for probate or letters of administration) becomes contentious, it shall proceed "as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure."

The Court reasoned that Section 299 explicitly links the appealability of orders under the Succession Act to the provisions of the CPC "applicable to appeals." This means that not every order passed by the District Judge in a Section 278 proceeding is automatically appealable. Instead, the appealability must be in accordance with the CPC provisions governing appeals from orders, primarily listed in Order 43 Rule 1.

Upon examining Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, the Court found that an order rejecting an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not included in the list of appealable orders. The Court reiterated the principle that an appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed without a specific statutory provision granting the right.

Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 295 directs contentious proceedings under Section 278 to follow the CPC as a regular suit. Combining this with Section 299, the Court concluded that appeals against orders passed during Section 278 proceedings must conform to the appealability criteria set out in the CPC, particularly Order 43 Rule 1.

Decision and Implications

Based on this analysis, the High Court held that an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not lie against the rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in a proceeding under Section 278 of the Act.

The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. However, it granted liberty to the appellant to challenge the impugned order through alternative appropriate proceedings, specifically mentioning a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

This judgment clarifies an important procedural aspect under the Indian Succession Act, confirming that interlocutory orders in succession proceedings, even if made by the District Judge, are subject to the appealability restrictions defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, unless specifically provided otherwise.