MP HC Lets Land-Suit Plaintiff Drop Sale-Deed And Title Claims, With No Prejudice From The Amendment Shown

The petitioner/plaintiff challenged the trial court’s order rejecting his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in a suit concerning title to land and certain revenue orders and a sale deed.

After the respondent’s written statement, the petitioner sought to give up relief concerning the sale deed and title to the remaining land, and to pursue a challenge to the revenue orders.

The trial court rejected the application because it had been filed after commencement of trial and did not plead due diligence.

The petitioner argued that the amendment responded to the respondent’s pleaded position, that his evidence had not commenced, and that the respondent would suffer no prejudice; the respondent relied on an earlier amendment and the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, subject to the proviso requiring the court to be satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial when the application is made thereafter.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court stated that amendments should generally be allowed when necessary for effective adjudication, unless they introduce a time-barred claim, change the nature of the suit, are mala fide, or deprive the opposite party of a valid defence; amendments confined to relief based on facts already pleaded ordinarily warrant allowance.

The Court also relied on Akkiraju Panduranga Rao v. Gunlapally Ranga Rao for the proposition that the relevance of the proposed amendment must be considered, and noted Basavaraj v. Indira in relation to due diligence.

The trial court rejected the application only because the petitioner had not pleaded due diligence, rather than because the amendment changed the suit’s character or prejudiced the respondent.

The High Court considered that the proposed amendment arose in light of the respondent’s written statement and would relinquish certain reliefs, while the suit remained at a stage warranting liberal consideration.

The respondent did not identify any prejudice that would result from allowing the amendment, and could seek a consequential amendment to the written statement.

In these circumstances, the trial court’s refusal amounted to a jurisdictional error.

The respondent was permitted to seek a consequential amendment to the written statement, if advised.

The petition was disposed of without an order as to costs, and pending applications were closed.