After Defendants Deny Plaintiffs’ Title, Karnataka HC Upholds Amendment Seeking Possession In Alleged Encroachment Suit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the respondents to amend the plaint to seek possession.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favour of the respondents, holding that the Trial Court was justified in allowing the plaint amendment and that the amendment did not change the suit’s nature or cause of action.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The respondents had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that the petitioners had encroached on part of the suit property.

pp. 5–6

After the petitioners’ written statement denied the plaint allegations, the respondents applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint and seek possession.

pp. 5–6

The petitioners objected that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause of action.

pp. 5–6

The Trial Court allowed the application on 15 September 2020, prompting this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 5–6

The High Court recorded that the amendment application was filed before commencement of trial.

p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the respondents to amend the plaint to seek possession.

pp. 7–9

ii.2. Whether the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit or altered its cause of action.

p. 9

03Law Applied

Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers a court to permit amendment of pleadings where necessary to determine the real questions in controversy.

pp. 7–9

Its proviso requires a party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

pp. 7–9

The Court referred to Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385, concerning amendment applications made before commencement of trial, and to Smt. Khuthejabi v. Fayaz Khan, 2013 (4) KLJ 295, which the Trial Court had relied upon.

pp. 7–9

04Reasoning

The High Court noted that the proposed amendment followed the petitioners’ denial of the respondents’ claims and sought possession in addition to the existing injunction relief.

pp. 8–9

Since the application was filed before commencement of trial, the post-commencement due-diligence requirement did not apply.

pp. 8–9

On examining the proposed amendment, the Court concluded that it neither changed the nature of the suit nor altered the cause of action; accordingly, the Trial Court’s decision to allow it warranted no interference under Article 227.

pp. 8–9