After Repeated Amendments, Karnataka HC Gives Deceased Plaintiff’s Heirs A “Final Indulgence” To Amend Plaint, Subject To ₹15,000 Costs

The legal representatives of the original plaintiff challenged the Trial Court’s order rejecting their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 411/2011.

The Trial Court had relied on the plaintiffs’ prior amendment applications, lack of diligence, and the potential ambiguity of the proposed amendment to paragraph (i).

Defendant No. 8 opposed the amendment, contending that it introduced a plea inconsistent with the original plaint; an objection was also raised concerning the plaintiffs’ status as heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

The petitioners maintained that the amendments elaborated on the existing case without changing its nature or withdrawing an admission.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings.

Particularly at the pre-trial stage, amendments should be considered liberally unless they change the nature and character of the suit, introduce a wholly inconsistent case, or cause prejudice that cannot be adequately compensated by costs.

Lack of diligence is relevant but is not, by itself, determinative where the amendment is germane and the opposing party can respond through additional pleadings.

On examining the original plaint and proposed amendments, the Court considered them to be elaborations and additional facts relating to the case already pleaded, rather than changes to the suit’s basic nature or attempts to displace a vested right.

Although it recognised the plaintiffs’ lack of diligence and the history of earlier amendment requests, it held that these factors did not alone justify refusal.

Any prejudice to the contesting defendants could be addressed by allowing them to file additional written statements; the Court also treated the permission as a final indulgence.

The plaintiffs were directed to pay Rs. 15,000 to the Karnataka Advocates’ Clerks’ Benevolent Trust Fund within three days of receiving a certified copy and, upon producing proof of payment, to file and serve the amended plaint.

The defendants were permitted to file additional written statements. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the suit and made no order as to costs in the writ petition.