Karnataka High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Directs Trial Court to Determine Whether Plaintiffs’ Declaration Claim is Barred by Limitation Under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, Ensuring Fair Adjudication of Dispute

Court’s Decision:

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the plaintiffs and overturned the trial court’s order that rejected their application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for amending their plaint. The court permitted the amendment and directed the trial court to frame an additional issue regarding whether the plaintiffs’ claim for declaration is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court instructed the trial court to adjudicate this issue alongside the other issues in the main suit.

Detailed Breakdown of the Judgment:

Facts:

1. The plaintiffs had filed a partition suit seeking:
   • Division and separate possession of the properties listed in the suit schedule.
   • Declaration that a sale deed related to the suit property is not binding on them.
2. During the trial, the plaintiffs realized the necessity of amending their plaint to include specific reliefs. Consequently, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amending the plaint.
3. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that it was barred by limitation since the objectionable transaction had been mentioned in their written statement as far back as 2012.
4. The trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ application, holding that the amendment application was belated and barred by limitation.

Issues:

1. Whether the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was legally barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act?
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application, thereby impeding the plaintiffs’ rights to a fair trial?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The plaintiffs contended that their prayer was limited to seeking a declaration that the sale deed was not binding on them. This did not amount to setting aside the sale deed, thereby making their claim immune to the limitation bar under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
2. They argued that the amendment application was filed promptly as soon as they became aware of the sale deed, and there was no inordinate delay in their approach.
3. The plaintiffs maintained that the amendment was necessary to fully address the real questions in controversy and ensure a fair trial.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The defendants argued that the amendment application was grossly delayed, as they had disclosed the disputed transaction in their written statement in 2012. The plaintiffs, however, waited 12 years to file their amendment application in 2024.
2. They asserted that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation, as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for seeking cancellation or declaration of an invalid instrument.
3. The defendants supported the trial court’s order, claiming that the rejection of the amendment application was both lawful and justified.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC: This provision allows amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, the proviso to this rule restricts amendments once the trial has commenced, except in cases where the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.
2. Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article specifies that any suit for cancellation or declaration of an instrument’s invalidity must be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arises or when the party becomes aware of the issue.
3. Judicial Approach: Courts have consistently held that procedural amendments should not be disallowed merely on grounds of delay if they are essential for determining the dispute on merits. At the same time, courts must assess whether the amendments violate substantive limitations imposed by law.

Precedent Analysis:

The High Court referred to precedents that establish the following principles:

• Amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed if they help in addressing the real issues in controversy, unless the proposed amendment is barred by limitation or causes irreparable prejudice to the other party.
• The question of limitation concerning the relief sought through the amendment should be determined by framing an issue and adjudicating it during the trial, rather than outright rejecting the amendment application.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court acknowledged that the sale deed in question pertained to the suit schedule property and was directly relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim for partition and separate possession.
2. The High Court observed that the trial court prematurely dismissed the amendment application without addressing whether the relief sought by the plaintiffs was indeed barred by limitation under Article 59. It held that such a determination required a detailed examination of facts and law, which could only be conducted during the trial.
3. The High Court clarified that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the defendants since the question of limitation could still be adjudicated as a separate issue during the trial.

Conclusion:

The High Court issued the following directives:

1. The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court’s order rejecting the amendment application was set aside.
2. The plaintiffs’ amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was allowed.
3. The trial court was instructed to frame an additional issue to determine whether the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. This issue must be considered and decided along with the other issues in the main trial, in accordance with the law.

Implications:

1. Balance Between Procedural and Substantive Law: The judgment highlights the court’s flexibility in procedural matters to ensure justice, while still allowing substantive issues like limitation to be resolved during the trial.
2. Clarification on Article 59: The court’s directive to frame a separate issue on limitation underscores that limitation-related questions should not be used to summarily reject amendments but should be decided on the merits of the case.
3. Judicial Efficiency: The decision reinforces the principle that procedural amendments are integral to resolving disputes on merits and should not be denied lightly, provided they do not contravene substantive legal provisions.

Also Read – Supreme Court Upholds Retrospective Application of Tarsem Singh (2019) Judgment: “Landowners Whose Lands Were Acquired Under the NHAI Act Between 1997-2015 Entitled to Solatium and Interest; Financial Burden Not a Justification to Deny Compensation”