Case title: Khazan Singh vs. Baldev Singh
Case no.: CM No. 274/2023.
Decided on: 15.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the petitioner against the respondents regarding land measuring 9 kanals at Village Sungal, Tehsil Akhnoor. The respondents claimed to be co-sharers of 1/3rd of 58 kanals of land covered under Survey Nos. 2902 & 2903 along with their cousins. The petitioner sought to amend the suit to include the land covered under Survey No. 2902, making the total claimed land 19 kanals and 6 marlas. The Trial Court initially rejected the application for amendment, leading to the challenge in the petition.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provision involved in the case was Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This rule allows either party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just. The purpose of such amendments should be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Additionally, the Proviso added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, states that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began despite due diligence.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The petitioner/appellant contended that the Trial Court’s rejection of the application for amendment was done in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. The appellant argued that the Trial Court’s decision overlooked the principles underlying Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Emphasized the importance of allowing the proposed amendment to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. Highlighted the necessity of incorporating the additional land covered under Survey No. 2902, which was crucial to the case but inadvertently omitted from the original suit. Asserted that the denial of the requested amendment would result in a multiplicity of litigation, contrary to the intended scheme of Order VI Rule 17.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents objected to the application for amendment filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. Opposed the inclusion of the additional land covered under Survey No. 2902 in the suit, claiming that the counsel for the petitioner had been informed about this land and provided with all necessary revenue papers. Argued against the necessity of the proposed amendment and the Trial Court’s decision to reject it. Stressed on the Trial Court’s discretion in considering the amendment and the potential implications of allowing it on the case.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court analyzed the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The Court referred to relevant judgments, including the one passed by the Apex Court in the case titled “Mahila Ramkali Devi and others v. Nand Ram,” to support the argument that amendments should be granted for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. In the judgment, the Court held that the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application for amendment was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the petition succeeded, and the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 was set aside. The Court allowed the application for amendment filed by the petitioner, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within ten days from the judgment date.
The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need to consider the principles of justice and fairness in allowing the necessary amendments to the pleadings. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring a fair trial and promoting the ends of justice by granting the requested amendment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
