Trial court may hear amendment and maintainability applications simultaneously when neither has been decided.

The petitioners were parties in Title Suit No. 216 of 2019 before the Sub Judge-I, Patna.

The defendants had filed a petition dated 11 July 2019 challenging the maintainability of the suit. During the pendency of that petition, the plaintiff filed an application dated 12 January 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the plaint.

On 26 August 2022, the trial court directed that the amendment application be heard first. Subsequently, by order dated 18 March 2023, the trial court recalled that direction and ordered that the amendment application and the defendants’ application seeking dismissal of the suit be heard together.

The present Civil Miscellaneous application challenged the order dated 18 March 2023.

Whether the trial court was required to decide the plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before adjudicating the defendants’ application challenging the maintainability of the suit.

Whether the trial court could lawfully direct simultaneous hearing of the amendment application and the defendants’ application seeking dismissal of the suit when neither application had yet been decided.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs amendment of pleadings, along with the general procedural principle that the trial court may regulate the sequence and manner of hearing interlocutory applications where no statutory impediment exists.

The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, there was no legal bar to hearing the amendment application and the application challenging maintainability simultaneously, particularly as neither application had been decided.

The High Court noted that the petitioners’ contention was based on the proposition that the amendment application ought to be decided first, after which the maintainability application should be considered.

However, on examining the impugned order, the Court found that the trial court had merely directed that both applications be heard together and had not finally adjudicated either of them. Since both applications remained pending, the High Court found no legal impediment to their simultaneous consideration. The challenge to the trial court’s procedural direction was therefore held to be premature.

The trial court was requested to hear and dispose of both applications simultaneously, preferably on the same day, within two months from receipt or production of the High Court’s order. Both parties were directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the applications. Civil Miscellaneous No. 490 of 2023 was accordingly disposed of.