This application challenged an order allowing a late amendment to a plaint. The High Court held that amendment power is discretionary for ends of justice and the impugned order caused no prejudice. The writ petition was dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8758 of 2013 In
C.R. 1639 of 2009
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Shyama Nand Thakur, advocate For the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. A. K. Mallic, advocate Mr. Murlidhar, advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.8758 of 2013 (5) dt.10-09-2013
2/3
5 10-09-2013
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
In the present application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2009 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Naugachhia in T.S. No. 31/91 whereby learned court below has allowed an amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the court below has committed gross irregularity while passing the impugned order at the stage of argument. He submits that the petition for amendment was brought after conclusion of argument on behalf of the defendants which was not proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that it will cause injustice to the petitioners if the order is allowed to stand.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and contends that the amendments were necessary so as to rectify certain typographical mistakes occurring in the plaint and the court below has rightly allowed the amendment petition. He submits that the court below has the jurisdiction to permit amendment in the pleadings at any stage of the suit and the impugned order
Patna High Court CWJC No.8758 of 2013 (5) dt.10-09-2013
3/3
cannot be said to be illegal or beyond jurisdiction.
Having considered the rival submissions on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that power to permit amendment in the plaints under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary in nature. Such amendment can be allowed to be made at any stage of the suit if the court considers it proper for the ends of justice. Such discretion, if exercised positively by the court permitting a party to amend the pleadings, this court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not required to interfere unless such order is found to be grossly unjust and illegal.
I am of the view, as has been recorded in the impugned order, that the case of the petitioners will not be prejudiced, in any manner, if the amendment was allowed to be made in the plaint. The petitioners will have the opportunity of rebuttal and of leading evidence etc. in view of the amendment.
In view of the above, the impugned order needs no interference by this court. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
BKS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Sub Judge's order allowing a late amendment to the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the discretion to allow amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was exercised fairly without causing prejudice to the petitioners.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahadeo Sharma and Ors.
Dharo Mahto and Ors.
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
