High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allowance of an amendment to a defendant's written statement under CPC Order VI Rule 17, holding the lower court's decision was not perverse as the trial had not commenced.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP 5478/17
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5478/2017
Suryakant Mahadu Garude & others.
...Petitioners..
Versus
Babanrao Dasa Garude & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for petitioners.
.....
CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATE: 27.04.2017
ORDER :
1]This petition challenges the order dated 16.3.2017
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
allowing the application of respondent no.1 herein to
amend the written statement under the provisions of Order
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2]The petitioners amended their plaint after the
respondent no.1 had filed his written statement.
Consequent to the amendment made by the petitioners to
the plaint, the respondent no.1 filed an application to
amend his written statement. The amendment was allowed
on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. This, after recording
the fact that the trial of the suit has not commenced and
that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of
the suit. The impugned order also records the sole
ground urged before him to reject the application for
amendment was that the amendment ought to have been made
WP 5478/17
- 2 -
by the respondent no.1 immediately after the amendment of
the plaint by the plaintiffs.
3]Mr.Mukhedkar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, urges that the amendment ought not to have
been allowed as it changes the nature of the defence.
4]I find that the impugned order is a speaking order.
It considers the fact that the trial of the suit has not
commenced and the occasion to amend the written statement
was only because the plaintiffs had amended the plaint.
The view taken in the impugned order allowing the
amendment is a possible view and it cannot be said to be
perverse so as to warrant interference with the same
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5]Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
ndk/ c2741714.doc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Judge erred in allowing the amendment to the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as it allegedly changed the nature of the suit.
Whether the impugned order is a speaking order and whether the amendment was required given the subsequent amendment to the plaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶20
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suryakant Mahadu Garude & others
Babanrao Dasa Garude & others
M.S. Sanklecha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court