AMENDMENT TO OMIT RELIEF AT JUDGMENT STAGE DISALLOWED IF IT ALTERS SUIT NATURE OR EVADES COURT FEES.

The respondent filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and partition against the petitioners.

After the closure of evidence and final arguments, the Trial Court, on 29.11.2022, directed the respondent to correct the suit valuation and pay requisite court fees for the relief of partition, failing which the suit would be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The respondent initially filed an amendment application to comply but later withdrew it.

Subsequently, at the stage of delivery of judgment, the respondent filed a fresh application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to omit the relief of partition and an application under Section 151 CPC to recall/review the order dated 29.11.2022.

The Trial Court allowed both applications via the impugned order dated 22.02.2023.

1. Whether an amendment seeking to omit a core relief after the conclusion of trial and at the stage of judgment delivery is permissible if it changes the nature of the suit or prejudices the defendant.

2. Whether an application for review/recall of a prior order can be entertained under Section 151 CPC when express provisions for review exist under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

The Court applied Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC regarding the amendment of pleadings, governed by the principles in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. (2022), which stipulates that amendments changing the nature of the suit or divesting a party of a valid defence must be disallowed.

Regarding the use of inherent powers, the Court relied on Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan (2013), establishing that Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when a specific remedy (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for Review) is expressly provided in the Code.

The Court found that the respondent’s claim—that the relief of partition was a typographical error—was factually incorrect as per a scrutiny of the plaint.

It determined that allowing the omission of the partition relief at the judgment stage would fundamentally change the nature of the suit and prejudice the petitioners by depriving them of a valid defence.

The Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining a review/recall request under Section 151 CPC.

The High Court noted that the Trial Court's reasoning (that the review was consequential to the amendment being allowed) was flawed because the amendment itself was legally unsustainable at that late stage.

The court reaffirmed that procedural maneuvers cannot be used to circumvent court fee requirements or alter the character of a suit after trial conclusion.

It set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2023, rejected the respondent's applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC, and allowed the Miscellaneous Petition.