Facts
The petitioner had instituted O.S. No. 62 of 2007 seeking declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession.
Source reference: p. 2–4In 2024, after the plaintiff’s witnesses had been examined in 2009 and the plaintiff’s arguments had concluded, he sought amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Source reference: p. 2–4The proposed amendments denied certain historical sales of land and sought declarations that specified sale deeds and mutation proceedings were void, illegal and not binding on him.
Source reference: p. 2–4The trial court rejected the application, finding that the amendments would change the nature of the suit.
Source reference: p. 2–4The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 2–4Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s belated application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Source reference: p. 2–3, 5Whether the proposed amendments warranted interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings, but its proviso bars an application after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.
Source reference: p. 2, 5The court also considered whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit.
Source reference: p. 2, 5The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was invoked to review the trial court’s order; the judgment cited no precedent.
Source reference: p. 2, 5Reasoning
The proposed amendments went beyond clarifying the existing claim: they introduced denials of specific historical sales and sought new declarations concerning sale deeds and mutation proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3–5They were sought in 2024, long after the plaintiff’s witnesses had been examined in 2009 and after the plaintiff’s arguments had concluded.
Source reference: p. 3–5The petitioner had not demonstrated due diligence, and the amendments, in the court’s view, would change the nature of the suit.
Source reference: p. 3–5The trial court therefore acted correctly in refusing the application, and no basis for supervisory interference was established.
Source reference: p. 3–5Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner had not satisfied the due-diligence requirement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and that the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit.
Finding no ground to interfere with the trial court’s order under Article 227, it dismissed C.M.P. No. 1048 of 2024.
Source reference: p. 5Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
MAHABIR KUMHARvsBARTU SAHU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
