The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 to quash the civil court's rejection of an amendment application. It held that the amendment should be allowed in the interest of complete adjudication and directed the lower court to expedite the suit.
The writ petition is allowed, impugned order is quashed, and amendment of plaint is allowed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16969 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THAKRANAIKA
S/O LATE LACHMANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O UJJANIPURA VILALGE, HONNALI TALUK-577217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P N HARISH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SEVABAYA VIDYA SAMSTE REGD., CHIKKABASUR TANDA, HONNALI TALUK-577217. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
SRI SEVABAYA VIDYA SAMSTE REGD., CHIKKABASUR TANDA, HONNALI TALUK-577217. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOUNESH BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 27.3.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HONNALI IN O.S.NO.180/2010 REJECTING THE IA NO.9 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN O.S.NO.180/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HONNALI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.180/2010 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Honnali (for short, ' the civil Court '). The civil Court by its impugned order dated 27.03.2018 has rejected the petitioner's application (I.A.N.9) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner's application is to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer.
extent [which is described in plaint schedule 'B'] but the respondents are in possession of an extent that is described in plaint schedule 'C' and therefore, he is entitled for declaration of title to the schedule ‘A’ property and for a decree for possession of schedule ‘C’ property.
statement denying that the petitioner is in possession of the schedule 'B' property and contending that the total extent of land in Sy.No.32/1P is 3 acres 24 guntas, and this extent is donated, at the instance of the villagers, for the purposes of establishing a high school. The respondents also contend that the petitioner has donated an extent of 6 guntas in the aforesaid survey number under the deed dated 10.06.1999.
and decree against the respondents to deliver vacant possession of the portion that is in their possession. The
civil Court has rejected this application essentially on the ground of delay in filing the application observing that the parties have completed their evidence and the application is filed at the stage of final arguments.
6. There is considerable force in the submission. It
is settled that even after commencement of trial, the Courts, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, could allow amendment provided the amendment enables complete adjudication and the other side is not put to injustice, and
the question of due diligence is examined as reasonable
diligence. If the amendment is proposed as a matter of abundant caution, in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the leave to amend could not have been rejected on the ground that there is no reasonable diligence. If the respondents are permitted to file written statement to meet the amendment for alternative prayer, they will not be put to injustice and this could be in addition to the leave to bring on record any material evidence that they may want to. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed, and the civil Court's impugned order dated 27.03.2018 is quashed. The application for amendment is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out amendment within 15 [fifteen] days from the date of first appearance before the civil Court after this order.
b) The civil Court must identify the present suit as
a long pending matter and take all such
measures as would be necessary for expeditious
disposal of the suit.
Sd/JUDGE
RB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of plaint for alternative prayer should be allowed in the interest of complete adjudication.
Whether delay in filing amendment bars the matter when it is for abundant caution.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Thakranaika
The President, Sri Sevabaya Vidya Samste Regd.
The Secretary, Sri Sevabaya Vidya Samste Regd.
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
