First appellate courts should ordinarily hear substantive interim applications with the main appeal, Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines

The plaintiff challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 23 March 2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, in R.A. No. 134 of 2008, whereby the application of defendant No. 3 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed. The amendment permitted defendant No. 3 to introduce specific pleadings that the suit schedule properties were his self-acquired properties, although documentary evidence had already been produced in support of that contention

The suit, instituted in 2001, had been decreed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In second appeals, the High Court found that cross-objections filed by defendant Nos. 11 and 12 had not been considered. It therefore set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of both the regular appeal and the cross-objections

After remand, defendant No. 3 sought amendment of the written statement. The First Appellate Court allowed the application while keeping the main appeal pending

Pursuant to that order, defendant No. 3 led further evidence and the plaintiff cross-examined the witness

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in independently deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC while keeping the regular first appeal pending?

2. Whether the amendment application ought to have been considered together with the main appeal, particularly in light of the limited scope of the remand order?

3. Whether the impugned order allowing the amendment was liable to be quashed on account of the procedural irregularity committed by the First Appellate Court?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which governs amendment of pleadings, read with Section 151 CPC concerning the court’s inherent powers, and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC.

It held that a first appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and requires an independent and comprehensive reappraisal of the pleadings, evidence, findings, and material issues.

Relying on Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179; Dilip v. Mohd. Azizul Haq, AIR 2000 SC 1976; Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 629; and V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by LRs., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Court held that interlocutory applications having a substantial nexus with the merits of the appeal should ordinarily be heard along with the main appeal, rather than being decided independently

Departure from this procedure is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, with specific reasons recorded by the appellate court

The High Court held that the proposed amendment directly affected the merits of the appeal because it introduced a substantive defence that the suit properties were self-acquired properties of defendant No. 3

Determining the necessity, relevance, evidentiary basis, and potential prejudice arising from the amendment required consideration of the entire appeal, including the pleadings, evidence, and the issues arising from the remand

By allowing the amendment independently and postponing the hearing of the main appeal, the First Appellate Court fragmented the proceedings and deprived itself of the opportunity to assess the amendment in the context of the complete appellate record

The fact that additional evidence had already been led and cross-examination had taken place did not cure the procedural defect.

The High Court therefore found the impugned procedure legally unsustainable, while directing that any further evidence, if the amendment was ultimately allowed, must be strictly confined to the amended pleadings

The order dated 23 March 2021 in R.A. No. 134 of 2008 allowing defendant No. 3’s amendment application was quashed and set aside

The First Appellate Court was directed to hear the amendment application together with the main appeal and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the scope of the earlier remand order

If the amendment was ultimately allowed, defendant No. 3 was to be permitted to adduce only limited additional evidence confined to the amended pleadings

The First Appellate Court was further directed to endeavour to dispose of the long-pending appeal expeditiously, with cooperation from the parties.