An amendment introducing an inconsistent possession plea was impermissible after commencement of trial.

The petitioner-plaintiff brought a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over three parcels of land, alleging that a sale deed executed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was nominal and that he remained in possession.

After issues had been framed and the matter was set for the plaintiff’s evidence, he applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to seek possession if the trial court found that he was not in possession.

The trial court rejected the application as inconsistent with the original pleading; the plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the proposed amendment seeking possession, conditional on a finding that the plaintiff was not in possession, was inconsistent with his original pleading that he remained in possession.

2. Whether the amendment could be allowed after issues had been framed and the case fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings; the court considered the provision alongside Section 151 CPC, under which the plaintiff had made his application.

The court treated a proposed amendment that contradicted the plaintiff’s existing assertion of possession as mutually inconsistent in the circumstances of the case.

It also relied on Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 409, in addressing the restriction on entertaining an amendment application after trial has commenced.

Article 227 provides the supervisory jurisdiction invoked to challenge the trial court’s order.

The plaint expressly asserted that the plaintiff was in possession and that possession had never been delivered to the defendants; the proposed amendment, by contrast, sought recovery of possession if the trial court found the defendants to be in possession.

The High Court held that this was a mutually inconsistent plea in light of the transaction pleaded.

It further noted that issues had been framed and the suit was fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence, and concluded that the amendment could not be entertained at that stage, referring to Vidyabai.

It found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the trial court’s refusal.