High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment of plaint under CPC. The Court held that since amendment was sought before trial without prejudice to defendants, no interference was warranted.
Writ petition dismissed with 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.58394 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
[BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
LAKSHMAMMA,
Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
NC: 2023:KHC:19042 WP No. 58394 of 2016
K.P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY 1ST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU ON IA NO.4 DATED 23.8.2016 IN O.S.NO.1029/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Challenging impugned order dated 23.08.2016 passed by
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District on I.A.no.IV in O.S.no.1029/2008, this writ petition is filed.
defendants specifically contending that defendants were in possession of suit property. Defendants pleaded that though
NC: 2023:KHC:19042 WP No. 58394 of 2016
suit property originally belonged to Shri Lakkanna, upon his death, it was inherited by his son-in-law Dasarahalli Muniswamaiah. After his death, it fell to share of his daughter Gangamma in family partition that took place on 10.02.1977 and thereafter under oral agreement between Gangamma and Muniyappa for exchange of properties allotted to their shares, suit property came in possession of defendants and they were in possession since then.
on strength of evidence and proposed amendment would not prejudice defendants in any manner.
2, they are served and unrepresented, while learned counsel for respondents no.3 to 5 remained absent.
taken up for disposal by perusing writ petition records.
and legal representatives coming on record, amendment was sought.
“(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided:
(a) amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by
the party which confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,
(ii) amendment changes nature of the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”
…emphasis supplied
Prasad v/s Rajeshwar Prasad and Others , reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 has held that it would be available for plaintiffs to take up alternative plea even though inconsistent with original plea and application for amendment cannot be rejected on that ground.
Sd/JUDGE
GRD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amendment of plaint to add alternative prayer for possession changed the nature of the suit thereby justifying interference by the High Court.
Whether the lower court's allowance of amendment lacking prejudice to defendants warrants quashing in a writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Life Insurance Corporations of India v/s Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and AnotherReferred¶50
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 · Who else cites this
Ganesh Prasad v/s Rajeshwar Prasad and OthersReferred¶73
2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 · Who else cites this
Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. GandhiReferred¶71
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri N. Lakshmaiah
Sri P.H. Siddappa
Lakshmamma
Smt. Anjinamma
Smt. S.M. Shantha
Smt. Lakshmamma
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
