2001 JTR(SC) 135
2001 AIR(SC) 699 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 342 ; 2001 2 ALD(SC) 31 ; 2001 1 AllCJ 509 ; 2001 42 AllLR 582 ; 2001 1 AllMR(SC) 853 ; 2001 1 AWC 622 ; 2001 2 CivCC 298 ; 2001 2 GLH 209 ; 2001 2 ICC 14 ; 2001 2 JT 11 ; 2001 1 OLR 475 ; 2001 1 PLJ 217 ; 2001 1 RCR(Civ) 726 ; 2001 1 Scale 354 ; 2001 2 SCC 472 ; 2001 1 SLT 668 ; 2001 1 UJ 387 ; 2001 WLC 177 ; 2001 1 Supreme 328
2001(1) Supreme 328
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Ragu Thilak D. John -Appellant
versus
S. Rayappan & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 787 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 420 of 2000)
Decided on 23-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Balakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Subramanium Prasad, Ms. Astha Tyagi, S.N. Jha, M.K.D. Namboodiri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Nedumaran and M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Advocates.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.6 R.17
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, which governs the amendment of pleadings, is the statutory provision applied by the court to evaluate the permissibility of incorporating additional paragraphs into the plaint after the trial stage. This provision empowers the court to allow alterations or amendments at any stage of the proceedings to achieve the ends of justice, subject to such terms as may be just and reasonable, and to prevent multiplicity of litigation. The application of this rule was examined in light of the principles laid down in prior judicial precedents concerning the scope and limitation of such amendments. The court analyzed the interplay between the right to amend and the grounds of delay, potential prejudice, and the nature of the relief sought, ultimately determining that the amendment could be permitted on terms if the delay was condoned and the issue of limitation was to be addressed on merits after allowing the amendment.
(B) The key legal principles include the wide discretion vested in courts to amend pleadings in the interests of justice, the rejection of hypertechnical approaches that obstruct justice, the requirement that amendments should not introduce new causes of action or change the nature of the suit, and the allowance of amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation, with costs as a compensatory mechanism. The court also emphasized that the plea of limitation is arguable and may be treated as an issue once the amendment is permitted.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit against the respondents seeking a permanent injunction to restrain them from demolishing a compound wall and damaging the gate. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents allegedly demolished the wall and damaged the gate. The appellant later sought to amend the plaint to include additional paragraphs, which was rejected by the trial court and subsequently dismissed in a revision petition. The High Court held that the amendment would introduce a new case and change the nature of the suit, and also barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the amendment sought could not be declined if the test under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was applied, as the purpose of minimizing litigation justified the amendment. It observed that the plea of limitation being barred was arguable and could be made a subject of issue after allowing the amendment. The impugned order was found unsustainable.
Issues:
Whether an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed after the trial stage when it is alleged to introduce a new cause of action and is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court applied the liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the interests of justice and the objective of minimizing litigation, and held that the amendment could be permitted on terms, with the issue of limitation to be addressed thereafter.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs.
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, which governs the amendment of pleadings, is the statutory provision applied by the court to evaluate the permissibility of incorporating additional paragraphs into the plaint after the trial stage. This provision empowers the court to allow alterations or amendments at any stage of the proceedings to achieve the ends of justice, subject to such terms as may be just and reasonable, and to prevent multiplicity of litigation. The application of this rule was examined in light of the principles laid down in prior judicial precedents concerning the scope and limitation of such amendments. The court analyzed the interplay between the right to amend and the grounds of delay, potential prejudice, and the nature of the relief sought, ultimately determining that the amendment could be permitted on terms if the delay was condoned and the issue of limitation was to be addressed on merits after allowing the amendment.
(B) The key legal principles include the wide discretion vested in courts to amend pleadings in the interests of justice, the rejection of hypertechnical approaches that obstruct justice, the requirement that amendments should not introduce new causes of action or change the nature of the suit, and the allowance of amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation, with costs as a compensatory mechanism. The court also emphasized that the plea of limitation is arguable and may be treated as an issue once the amendment is permitted.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit against the respondents seeking a permanent injunction to restrain them from demolishing a compound wall and damaging the gate. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents allegedly demolished the wall and damaged the gate. The appellant later sought to amend the plaint to include additional paragraphs, which was rejected by the trial court and subsequently dismissed in a revision petition. The High Court held that the amendment would introduce a new case and change the nature of the suit, and also barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the amendment sought could not be declined if the test under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was applied, as the purpose of minimizing litigation justified the amendment. It observed that the plea of limitation being barred was arguable and could be made a subject of issue after allowing the amendment. The impugned order was found unsustainable.
Issues:
Whether an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed after the trial stage when it is alleged to introduce a new cause of action and is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court applied the liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the interests of justice and the objective of minimizing litigation, and held that the amendment could be permitted on terms, with the issue of limitation to be addressed thereafter.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs.
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.-Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them, their agents and subordinates from demolishing the compound wall in the suit scheduled property. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-defendants were alleged to have entered the appellant s house unauthorisedly and demolished the compound wall on north, east and western side. They were also alleged to have damaged the gate in the entrance.
4. In view of the subsequent developments, the appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint for adding paras 8(a) to 8(f) in his plaint. The trial Court rejected his prayer and the revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court vide order impugned in this appeal, mainly on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, would result in introducing a new case and cause of action. It was further held that as the appellant was seeking recovery of damages, the amendment could not be allowed as it would allegedly change the nature of the suit. It was also observed that the amendment sought was barred by limitation.
5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan1, L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jardine Skinner & Company2, Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors.3, M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram4 and various other authorities, this Court in B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai & Anr.5 held :
"The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation."
6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plant which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.
7. In view of the legal position, as noted hereinabove, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and permitting the appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
***************