The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition set asideing an order denying amendment of pleadings. The court held the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not mandatory and directed the trial court to permit the amendment.
The impugned order dated 14.5.2015 is set aside; the Court below is directed to allow the proposed amendment.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (227) No. 702 of 2015
Rajesh S/o Bhagwan Das, Aged About 32 Years Caste- Baniya, R/o Village Unchhdeeh, Police Chowki- Basdei, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Petitioner | : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1 | : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate. |
| For Respondent No.2 | : None. |
| For Respondent No.3/ State | : Shri Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. |
Order On Board
06/01/2016
2
Court may under exceptional circumstances only allow the amendment by exercising its discretionary power.
3
amendment relates to subsequent development. After institution of the suit, the Petitioner/ Defendant No.1 had filed the written statement/ counter claim to the proposed amendment and the same does not cover under the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The evidence is yet to be commenced. The developments are after filing of the suit and therefore, they are subsequent in the nature. The nature of pleadings are not changed if at all the amendments are incorporated and no harm will cause to any of the parties because the evidence is yet to be recorded by the Court below.
4
for the other part the matter requires complete adjudication and appreciation on merits and they cannot be separated as the alleged act as mentioned in the application is of continuing nature. As per settled law, now it is held that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is not mandatory and in proper cases the Court may allow the proposed amendments. In the impugned judgment, the Court below has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, but has not reiterated the exceptional circumstances on which permission to amend the plaint / written statement can be given.
Sd/-
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Judge
Nimmi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a liberal interpretation to permit amendment of pleadings after 11 years when trial is commenced but evidence has not begun.
Whether the mandatory nature of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC bars the amendment in the present facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and AnotherDistinguished¶16
(2009) 2 SCC 409 (Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Another) · Who else cites this
Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad and OthersDistinguished¶20
(2009) 3 SCC 513 (Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad and Others) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh S/o Bhagwan Das
Kuber Prasad S/o Shankar Prasad
Girwar Prasad
State Of Chhattisgarh
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
