Amendment adding a declaration that a decree is ineffective against a non-party does not change the suit’s nature.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration that she was the owner in possession of a one-fourth share in the suit property and that a sale deed dated 6 September 1990, executed by Buddharam in favour of respondent No. 1, was ineffective against her.

The petitioner alleged that the suit property was joint family property and that Buddharam, being one of the co-sharers, had unlawfully sold part of it.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint and relief clause after learning that respondent No. 1 had filed Civil Suit No. 110/2018 against respondent No. 2, without impleading the petitioner or other members of the joint family.

The V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhind, rejected the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the grounds that the relevant facts were allegedly within the petitioner’s knowledge when the suit was filed, no sufficient explanation for the delay had been provided, the amendment would alter the nature of the suit, and the petitioner had already closed her evidence.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy are generally required to be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposite party.

Relying on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that amendments should be permitted when necessary for effective adjudication, avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, or a more satisfactory determination of the dispute; delay alone is not a ground for rejection, and an amendment confined to an additional relief based on facts already pleaded ordinarily ought to be allowed.

An amendment may be refused if it introduces a time-barred claim, changes the nature of the suit, is mala fide, withdraws a clear admission, or deprives the opposite party of a valid defence.

The High Court held that the proposed amendment did not seek to establish that the earlier judgment and decree was a nullity; it merely sought a declaration that, having been passed in proceedings to which the petitioner was not a party, it was ineffective and non-binding against her.

This relief was connected with the petitioner’s existing claim concerning her share in the joint family property and the validity of the sale deed.

Therefore, the amendment did not introduce an entirely new cause of action or alter the nature of the suit.

The trial court had adopted an incorrect and overly restrictive approach in treating the amendment as a change in the nature of the suit.

Any prejudice to the defendants could be addressed by permitting them to file consequential amendments to their written statement, particularly since their evidence had not yet commenced.

Applying the liberal principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court found the amendment necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.

The petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed, permitting amendment of the plaint to seek a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 30 January 2023 in Civil Suit No. 110/2018 was ineffective and non-binding against her.

The respondents were given liberty to seek consequential amendments in their written statement.

The miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.