Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court upheld the trial court’s decision allowing an amendment to the plaint in a land dispute case pending since 1984, even though the amendment application was filed after 40 years and during final arguments. The Court reasoned that since the pleadings were filed before 1 July 2002, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requiring due diligence did not apply. However, recognising the inconvenience caused to the defendants by such a belated move, the Court modified the trial court’s order by imposing ₹25,000 as costs on the plaintiffs. The defendants were also given the right to rebut the new pleadings through an amended or additional written statement, and the trial court was directed to expedite disposal of the long-pending case.
Facts
A title suit was filed in 1984 concerning ownership of land allegedly purchased by one Sita Mahto on 17 February 1917. The plaintiffs originally claimed that Sita Mahto was their grandfather, through whom they derived title. The defendants disputed this relationship in their 1986 written statement. After closure of evidence and during arguments in 2013, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to state that Sita Mahto was actually the brother of their grandfather and had died issueless, thereby still forming the root of their claim. The defendants objected to the belated amendment, arguing it was an attempt to fill lacunae and delay proceedings. The trial court allowed the amendment without imposing costs, prompting the defendants to challenge the order before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether an amendment to pleadings filed nearly four decades after institution of the suit and during final arguments could be allowed.
- Whether the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC applied, requiring due diligence to be shown.
- Whether the trial court erred in not imposing costs despite the extraordinary delay in seeking amendment.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that the amendment was sought solely to fill gaps in the plaintiffs’ case after the trial had progressed to final arguments. They emphasised the extreme delay, the absence of due diligence, and the plaintiffs’ shifting stand regarding their relationship to Sita Mahto — from claiming him as their grandfather to stating he was merely the brother of their grandfather. They argued that the amendment was hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and that allowing it would unfairly prolong the litigation.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents argued that the amendment did not introduce an entirely new case but only clarified an existing factual assertion already denied by the defendants. Since the original plaint was filed before 1 July 2002, they submitted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC did not apply, in view of Section 16(2)(b) of the CPC Amendment Act, 2002. They contended that the change was necessary for determining the real dispute and that the defendants would suffer no prejudice because the facts regarding Sita Mahto’s role in the land transaction were already in the pleadings.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the effect of Section 16(2)(b) of the 2002 Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, which expressly excludes the application of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 for pleadings filed before the amendment came into effect on 1 July 2002. The suit, having been filed in 1984, fell squarely within this exception, meaning the plaintiffs were not bound to show due diligence despite the delay. The Court also applied the settled principle that amendments should be allowed if they (a) do not cause injustice to the other side, and (b) are necessary to resolve the real controversy.
Precedent Analysis
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil (AIR 1957 SC 363) — The Supreme Court approved the principle from Kisandas Rupchand that amendments ought to be allowed if they do not cause injustice and are necessary for resolving the real controversy. The Patna High Court found this principle applicable, as the defendants themselves had denied the claimed grandfather–grandson relationship, meaning they were not taken by surprise by the change.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the amendment merely modified the description of Sita Mahto’s relationship to the plaintiffs while retaining the same root of title through the 1917 purchase. Since the defendants had already contested this relationship in their written statement, the change did not cause prejudice or surprise. However, the Court acknowledged that seeking such an amendment after 40 years caused inconvenience to the defendants. Therefore, it held that costs should have been imposed by the trial court to compensate for the delay. The Court affirmed the allowance of the amendment but modified the order to direct the plaintiffs to pay ₹25,000 as costs and permitted the defendants to file an amended or additional written statement.
Conclusion
The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow the amendment but imposed ₹25,000 as costs on the plaintiffs for the delay. It also directed the trial court to permit the defendants to file an amended written statement and to take expeditious steps for disposal of the case, given its pendency since 1984.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that in suits filed before 1 July 2002, the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not apply, even for amendments sought decades later. However, courts may still impose costs to offset inconvenience caused by delay. It also illustrates that clarificatory amendments, which do not alter the fundamental cause of action and are already within the scope of the parties’ pleadings, are likely to be allowed, particularly when they help determine the real controversy.
Cases Referred & Their Relevance
- Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363 — Laid down that amendments should be allowed if they do not cause injustice and are necessary for determining the real issue. Applied here to justify allowing the amendment despite delay.
- Kisandas Rupchand case [(1920) LR 47 IA 255] — Quoted with approval in Pirgonda, emphasising that the test is avoidance of injustice and relevance to the real controversy. Guided the Court’s reasoning in affirming the trial court’s order.
FAQs
Q1: Can amendments be allowed in suits pending before 1 July 2002 without showing due diligence?
Yes. Section 16(2)(b) of the CPC Amendment Act, 2002 exempts such cases from the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Q2: Does a 40-year delay in seeking amendment automatically bar it?
No. Delay alone is not fatal if the amendment does not cause injustice and is necessary to determine the real controversy, though costs may be imposed.
Q3: Can defendants challenge the new pleadings introduced by amendment?
Yes. They are entitled to file an amended or additional written statement to rebut the amended claims.
