High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment of plaint application under CPC Order VI Rule 17. The Court held the petitioner failed to show due diligence as the amendment was sought only at the arguments stage.
The writ petition is dismissed; liberty reserved to challenge under Section 105 CPC.
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 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.2555 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. RAJANNA, S/O CHENNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT SATHANUR VILALGE, BAGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
4. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. DILIP KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 10.01.2022 PASSED ON I.A. NO.16 IN O.S.NO.783/2008 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNX-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.16 dated 10.01.2022 passed in
O.S.No.783/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, filed this writ petition.
That petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.783/2008 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent
3
injunction. In the said suit, respondent No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court framed the issues. Thereafter posted the case for petitioner evidence. The petitioner lead the evidence and when the case is posted for arguments, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint. In support of the application, petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the suit schedule property was granted to the petitioner by the Tahasildar on 22.04.1962. Earlier to the said grant petitioner was unauthorizedly cultivating the schedule property. Taking note of the unauthorized cultivation by the petitioner, the Tahasildar granted the land in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, while disposing of the RRT dispute has reached an irrelevant conclusion that the Tahasildar has not granted the suit schedule property to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.10833/2006. This Court vide
4
order dated 21.11.2007, dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file a Civil Suit. The petitioner filed instant suit. The advocate on record while going through the case papers, has noticed a mistake in the plaint and advised to file amendment of plaint. Consequently, petitioner filed an application seeking for amendment of plaint. None of the respondents filed objection to the said application. The Trial Court, after hearing rejected the application vide order dated 10.01.2022. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition.
that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint. He further submits that the proposed amendment sought
5
by the petitioner neither changes the nature of the case nor cause of action. He further submits that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application, on the contrary, rejected the said application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
6
for arguments, petitioner filed an application seeking for an amendment of plaint. In order to consider the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to consider Order VI Rule 17, which read as under:
"17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
As per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.,
no Court shall allow the application for amendment of
7
pleading after the commencement of trial, unless the Courts come to conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial.
& ORS. [(2020) 11 SCC 549] , held that the parties have to satisfy that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
8
9
ORDER
SD/JUDGE
GRD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint filed after the commencement of the trial.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirement of showing that in spite of due diligence the matter could not have been raised before the commencement of the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale & Ors.Applied¶46
PANDIT MALHARI MAHALE VS. MONIKA PANDIT MAHALE & ORS. [(2020) 11 SCC 549] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. C. Rajanna
The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue
The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
The Special Deputy Commissioner
The Tahsildar
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
