01Facts
The petitioners challenged the First Appellate Court’s order rejecting their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.
pp. 5–7They sought to correct what they described as a typographical error in the family pedigree, contending that the correction was necessary to determine the real dispute.
pp. 5–7Respondents opposed the application, including on the ground that the petitioners had admitted the relevant relationship in cross-examination.
pp. 5–7The First Appellate Court rejected the application, referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; the petitioners then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution.
pp. 5–702Issues
i.Whether the First Appellate Court’s rejection of the amendment application, without assigning reasons beyond referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, could stand.
p. 7ii.Whether the High Court should itself allow the amendment or remit the application for reconsideration by the First Appellate Court.
pp. 7–803Law Applied
Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings, and its proviso imposes a restriction on amendments sought after trial has commenced.
pp. 4, 7–8The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
pp. 4, 7–8The order does not cite any precedent; its reasoning reflects the requirement that a court provide reasons for its decision on an application rather than reject it without meaningful consideration.
pp. 4, 7–804Reasoning
The High Court noted that the amendment application sought to correct the family pedigree and was presented as necessary to resolve the real dispute, while the respondents raised objections concerning maintainability and admissions made in cross-examination.
pp. 6–8The First Appellate Court’s order did not engage with those matters or explain its decision, but merely referred to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
pp. 6–8The High Court therefore held that the rejection was without application of mind.
pp. 6–8It did not determine whether the amendment should ultimately be allowed; it directed the First Appellate Court to reconsider the application.
pp. 6–805Holding
The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 2 September 2025 rejecting IA No. 8 was set aside.
p. 8IA No. 8 was restored to its original position for reconsideration by the First Appellate Court along with the merits of the matter.
p. 8If the court concludes that the application should be allowed, it must pass an appropriate order and give the respondents an opportunity to file an additional written statement, if any.
p. 8Original Court PDF
MALLASHAvsHUSSAINI S/O DHANJYA DIED BY LRS PULLYA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
