Writ petition filed to quash the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to amend the plaint in a partition suit. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary to adjudicate the matter effectively and interfered, allowing the application.
The impugned order dated 21.01.2022 dismissing IA No.19 was set aside and the Writ Petition 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 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
W.P. NO.2461 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
OPPOSITE TO MARUTI PARK BTM LAYOUT 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU – 560029
WIFE OF THE LATE KALEEMULLA SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 51, 8TH CROSS TELECOM LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU
WIFE OF THE LATE OBAIDUR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.27TH CROSS 20TH MAIN ROAD BTM LAYOUT 1ST STAGE BENGALURU – 560068
4 . SMT. MUBEEN BANU WIFE OF SHAIKH MASTAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 01 SMS HOUSE, 4TH CROSS
2
OPPOSITE IBP PETROL PUMP VI BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560095
5 . SMT. NASREEN BANU
WIFE OF SYED ZAHEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 3/3, 2ND CROSS, ANEPALYA NEELASANDRA BENGALURU - 560047
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI MOHAMMED AYUB SON OF THE LATE G MOHAMMED IQBAL @ DADA RAFI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO 01, FRASER APARTMENT 6TH CROSS, VEERANNA GARDEN FRASER TOWN BENGALURU – 560005 (LAND MARK: BEFORE CAFFE DAY)
3
BENGALURU – 560005 (LAND MARK : BEFORE CAFFE DAY)
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P S MARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2; R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2022 PASSED BY THE 19TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-F ON REJECTING THE IA NO.19 FILED FOR AMENDMENT UNDER ANNEXURE-C FILED IN O.S.NO.10501/2015.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.10501 of 2015 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city, challenging the order dated 21.01.2022, dismissing application-IA No.19.
4
No.19 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint by incorporating the paragraph mentioned in the application produced at Annexure- C to the Writ Petition. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by order dated 21.01.2022, dismissed IA No.19 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have presented this Writ Petition.
5
incorrect and accordingly, he submitted that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit is for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property and therefore, he argued that the trial Court should be liberal while dealing with the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection, he referred to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt ltd ., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 182 and in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi and others vs. Nandram (Dead) through legal representatives and others reported in ( 2015) 13 SCC 132 and accordingly, sought interference in this writ petition.
6
have carefully considered the proposed amendment sought in IA No.19 produced at Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. Perusal of the proposed amendment would indicate that the same would assist the court to effectively adjudicate the matter and therefore, I am of the view that, the trial Court ought to have accepted IA No.19 filed by the plaintiffs and it is trite law that as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, amendment application should normally be accepted, unless by virtue of amendment, nature of the suit is changed or sub prejudice be caused to the defendants. In that view of the matter, it is useful to reproduce the paragraphs 7 and 10 of Mount Meri Enterprises case (supra):
“7. In our opinion, as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the amendment application should be normally granted unless by virtue of the amendment nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the defendant. In the instant case, the nature of the suit was not to be changed by virtue of granting the amendment application because the suit was for specific performance and initially the property had been valued at Rs.13,50,000/- but as the market value of the property was actually Rs.1,20,00,000/-, the appellant-plaintiff had submitted an application for
7
amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint.
10. With regard to amendment of plaint, the following observation has been made by this Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 para(16):
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (1957) 1 SCR 595 which still holds the filed, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi and
Others stated supra, paragraph 17, 20 and 23 reads as under.
17. The application for amendment of plaint filed by appellant no.1 to make appellant nos. 2 to 5 fall under Class XVII of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code
8
was rejected by learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the same would change the nature of the suit which was filed 40 years ago, as the claim was made solely on the basis of Will and not on the basis of inheritance. The High Court allowed the appeal vide the impugned judgment as the appellants had no locus standi to file the suit as Ajuddhibai could not have transferred her interest through a Will. Hence, present appeal by special leave by the plaintiffs.
20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.
23. In Pandit Ishwardas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., this Court observed (SCC P.166 paras 4-5) :-
9
subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally, one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the Appellate stage the reason why it was not sought in the trial court. If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. But, there is no prohibition against an Appellate Court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court.”
8. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the aforementioned judgments, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court requires to be interfered with by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2022 passed on IA No. 19 in Original Suit No. 10501 of 2015 and the Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
SB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has the power under Article 227 to quash the Trial Court's order rejecting the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit or causes prejudice to the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt ltd.Referred¶39
(2015) 4 SCC 182 · Who else cites this
Mahila Ramkali Devi and others vs. Nandram (Dead) through legal representatives and othersReferred¶39
(2015) 13 SCC 132 · Who else cites this
North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs.Relied on¶45
(2008) 8 SCC 511 · Who else cites this
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and othersExplained¶45
(1957) 1 SCR 595 · Who else cites this
Pandit Ishwardas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.Referred¶53
(1965) 3 SCC 576 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Mohammed Younus and Ors.
Sri Mohammed Ayub and Ors.
E.S.Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
