Facts
The petitioners, as plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition, sought leave under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend their plaint.
Source reference: paras. 5–6The proposed amendments included adding Khasra No. 1132/4, measuring 0.380 hectares, to the property claimed for partition and inserting a reference to Khasra No. 1299/2, measuring 0.336 hectares.
Source reference: paras. 5–6The trial court rejected the application, reasoning that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and that partition proceedings were already pending before the Tehsil Court.
Source reference: para. 5The plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondents stated that they had no objection to the amendment.
Source reference: paras. 1–3Issues
Whether the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit or introduce an inconsistency in the plaintiffs’ case.
Source reference: paras. 5, 7Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiffs’ application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Source reference: paras. 1, 8Law Applied
The Court considered Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs amendment of pleadings, and its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: paras. 1, 8It applied the principle that an amendment adding a property description or Khasra number may be permitted where it is not inconsistent with the existing pleadings and does not change the nature of the suit.
Source reference: para. 7No judicial precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court compared the existing claim concerning the scheduled properties with the proposed amendments and found no inconsistency in the nature of the suit.
Source reference: para. 7It treated the proposed inclusion of the additional Khasra number(s) as an addition to the property already involved in the partition suit, rather than a change in the suit’s nature.
Source reference: para. 7It therefore held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the amendment application.
Source reference: para. 8Holding
The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioners, allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court’s order dated 21 January 2025, and allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The petitioners were permitted to make the amendments sought in their application dated 12 November 2024, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Source reference: para. 9The interim relief granted on 17 March 2025 was vacated.
Source reference: para. 10Original Court PDF
HARILALvsDATARAM
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
