Supreme Court Allows Amendment of Plaint After Trial Commenced: Gurbakhsh Singh vs. Buta Singh (27 April 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 357
Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can a party amend their pleadings after the trial has commenced? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a dispute over land rights. The Court allowed an amendment to the plaint, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed if they do not change the nature of the suit and do not prejudice the other party, even after the trial has begun. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around a civil suit filed by Gurbakhsh Singh and others (the appellants) to set aside an ex-parte decree dated 30 June 1969. This decree was originally passed in favor of Buta Singh (respondent No. 1) against the appellants’ predecessor-in-interest, based on reversionary rights. The appellants contended that the original suit file was untraceable. During the proceedings, after the examination of two official witnesses, the appellants sought to amend their plaint to include specific details about the land in question, which they claimed were deliberately omitted in the original suit. The appellants argued that the original suit was filed using old land numbers despite consolidation having taken place, and that not all the legal heirs were impleaded in the original suit. They also contended that the respondent No.1 could at best claim 1/9th share of the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court rejected the appellants’ application for amendment, stating that they had not exercised due diligence and could have raised the issues before the framing of issues. The appellants then filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, arguing that the amendment was merely to specify the khasra numbers and would not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the defendants. However, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, observing that while the amendment would not change the nature of the suit, it could not be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the party could prove they could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. This decision of the High Court was then challenged in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the amendment of pleadings. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2002, states that no amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial despite due diligence. The Court also considered previous judgments that emphasized the wide power of courts to allow amendments at any stage to determine the real questions in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the amendment was necessary to include specific details of the land, which were deliberately omitted in the original suit. They contended that the original suit was filed using old land numbers despite consolidation having taken place. They also stated that the original suit did not implead all the legal heirs of the vendor, and that the respondent No.1 could at best claim 1/9th share of the property.

The respondents argued that the appellants had not exercised due diligence and that the amendment should not be allowed after the commencement of the trial.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ contention that the original suit was deliberately filed with incomplete details to procure an ex-parte decree, highlighting a potential abuse of the legal process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section of the judgment. However, the main issue before the court was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint after the commencement of the trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:

• Abdul Rehman and Anr. vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Ors. [ (2012) 11 SCC 341 ] – The Supreme Court of India observed that the object of the rule is that courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
• J. Samuel & Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others [ (2012) 2 SCC 300 ] – The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice.
• Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd and Others [ (2012) 5 SCC 337 ] – The Supreme Court of India reiterated the principles for allowing amendments.

The Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – This provision deals with the amendment of pleadings, stating that no amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial despite due diligence.

Judgment

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Abdul Rehman and Anr. vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Ors. [ (2012) 11 SCC 341 ] – *The Court followed this case, emphasizing that the object of the rule is to allow amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.*
• J. Samuel & Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others [ (2012) 2 SCC 300 ] – *The Court followed this case, reiterating that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice.*
• Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd and Others [ (2012) 5 SCC 337 ] – *The Court followed this case, reiterating the principles for allowing amendments.*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the proposed amendment did not alter the fundamental nature of the suit. The Court recognized that the appellants were seeking to include specific details about the land, which were crucial to the case, and that these details were allegedly omitted in the original suit. The Court also noted that the original suit file was untraceable, which could have hindered the appellants from obtaining the correct particulars in time. The Court emphasized that amendments should be allowed if they do not prejudice the other party and help in determining the real questions in controversy.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the amendment was necessary to include specific details of the land, which were deliberately omitted in the original suit. The Court noted that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. The Court stated, *“In the given circumstances, in our view, the amendment ought to have been allowed. In any case it could not have caused any prejudice to the defendants.”* The Court also observed, *“The nature of amendment as proposed neither changes the character and nature of the suit nor does it introduce any fresh ground.”* The Court further stated, *“The High Court itself was conscious that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit.”*

Key Takeaways

• Amendments to pleadings can be allowed even after the commencement of the trial if they do not change the nature of the suit.
• Amendments should be allowed if they do not cause prejudice to the other party.
• Courts should focus on determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
• The principle of due diligence is not to be applied rigidly, especially when there are valid reasons for the delay in seeking the amendment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter after the plaint was amended as per the proposed amendment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed, even after the commencement of trial, if they do not alter the nature of the suit and do not prejudice the other party. This decision reinforces the principle that courts should focus on resolving the real issues in dispute and that technicalities should not be allowed to obstruct the pursuit of justice. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but it clarifies the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gurbakhsh Singh vs. Buta Singh allows for the amendment of a plaint even after the trial has commenced, provided that the amendment does not change the fundamental nature of the suit and does not prejudice the opposing party. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that cases are decided on their merits and that technicalities do not hinder the pursuit of justice. The Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that the power to allow amendments is wide and should be exercised in the interest of justice.