Amendment for declaratory relief permitted post-remand to resolve real controversy notwithstanding procedural delays.

The Petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Respondent (defendant), their real brother, to restrain him from obstructing possession of suit land.

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit.

On appeal (RCA 10/2020), the District Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter, observing that the suit was defective and required an amendment to include a prayer for declaration of ownership per the principles in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy.

The District Court directed the Petitioners to file the amendment application within 30 days of their appearance before the Trial Court.

The Petitioners appeared on July 20, 2022, but filed the amendment application (Exhibit 53) on December 16, 2022—a delay of approximately four months.

The Trial Court rejected the application because the Petitioners failed to explain the delay and disregarded the mandatory nature of the District Court's timeline.

A subsequent application (Exhibit 63) for the same relief was also rejected.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the amendment application solely due to procedural delay and the absence of a formal explanation for such delay.

2. Whether the directions issued by the District Court in its remand order remained binding on the parties despite the Petitioners' failure to adhere to the prescribed timeline.

The Court primarily applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, which necessitates a prayer for declaration of title when a plaintiff’s title is under a cloud in an injunction suit.

Procedural defaults should not typically defeat the crystallization of civil rights or the resolution of the "real controversy" if the litigation can be brought to its logical end through the imposition of costs.

Directions issued by a superior court (District Court) that go unchallenged are binding on the parties.

The Court observed that while the Petitioners were indeed in default for the delay and poor drafting of the application, the fundamental purpose of the remand was to allow the Civil Court to arrive at a correct conclusion regarding ownership.

The High Court emphasized that the Respondent had never challenged the District Court’s order granting leave to amend; thus, the Respondent could not retrospectively protest those directions.

The Court reasoned that since the litigation involved close relatives and a significant controversy over land ownership, the interest of justice required the parties to contest the suit on declaratory grounds rather than technicalities.

It held that the procedural lapse could be mitigated by imposing exemplary costs to compensate the Respondent for the delay.

The Court held that the Petitioners deserved an opportunity to amend the pleadings to ensure the controversy reached a logical end.

The Petitioners were ordered to carry out the amendment within two weeks and pay costs of ₹15,000 to the Respondent.

Failure to deposit costs or carry out the amendment would nullify the order.

The Trial Court was requested to conclude the hearing within one year.