Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Belated Amendment in Partition Suit: M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1669 of 2019 (@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19188 of 2010)
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a party amend their pleadings to introduce a completely new case after the trial has begun? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case concerning a family partition suit. The core issue was whether a plaintiff could amend their plaint to claim a prior partition after initially filing a suit for partition, especially when the amendment was sought after the trial had commenced. The two-judge bench of Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar delivered the judgment, with Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the partition of joint family properties. Initially, Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5, including the appellant M. Revanna, filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of their shares in the joint family properties.

The plaintiffs initially claimed a 1/6th share each for Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, a 1/6th share for Plaintiff No. 4, and a 1/6th share for Plaintiff No. 5. Shortly after the suit was filed, a compromise petition was filed by Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, stating that the properties had already been divided as per a memorandum of partition dated 18.05.1972 under the Panchayat Parikath.

Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, who were not initially parties to the suit, later sought to be impleaded, opposing the compromise petition. They argued that the joint family properties had never been divided. The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit based on the compromise petition, but this was overturned by the High Court, which restored the suit and directed the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits.

After the case was remanded, Plaintiff No. 6 (originally Defendant No. 6) presented evidence, while Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 delayed their evidence. Eventually, Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application to amend the plaint, seeking to introduce the claim of a prior partition based on the 1972 memorandum, which was objected to by Plaintiff No. 6 and other defendants.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit based on a compromise petition filed by some of the parties. However, the High Court of Karnataka overturned this decision, finding that the compromise was not valid and restored the suit. The High Court directed the Trial Court to decide the suit on its merits.

After the remand, Plaintiff No. 6 (originally Defendant No. 6) was added and presented evidence. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 then sought to amend their plaint to claim a prior partition, which the Trial Court allowed. The High Court, however, set aside the Trial Court’s order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This provision deals with the amendment of pleadings. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 states that:

“…no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

This proviso restricts the court’s discretion to allow amendments after the trial has started. It places a burden on the party seeking the amendment to demonstrate that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The court also needs to consider whether the amendment introduces a completely new case, challenges the fundamental character of the suit, or causes undue prejudice to the other party.

Arguments

Arguments of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 (Appellant):

• The Plaintiffs argued that a prior partition had taken place as per the memorandum of partition dated 18.05.1972.
• They sought to amend the plaint to reflect this fact, claiming they had discovered this partition after filing the suit.
• They contended that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Arguments of Plaintiff No. 6 (Respondent):

• The Respondent argued that the application for amendment was highly belated and not bona fide.
• They contended that the alleged partition never took place and that the family and its properties remained joint.
• The Respondent argued that the amendment would change the fundamental character of the suit, which was originally for partition, and would cause serious prejudice.
• The Respondent pointed out that the Plaintiffs were aware of the alleged partition as early as 1993, when they filed the compromise petition, and offered no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment.

The innovativeness of the argument by Plaintiff No. 6 was that the Plaintiffs were aware of the alleged partition as early as 1993, when they filed the compromise petition, and offered no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:
✓ Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order allowing the amendment of the plaint.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as provided in the source document. The Court noted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 restricts the court’s discretion to allow amendments after the trial has started, unless the party seeking the amendment demonstrates due diligence.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)* to conclude that the amendment sought by the Plaintiff was not permissible. The Court stated that the proviso restricts the court’s discretion to allow amendments after the trial has started, unless the party seeking the amendment demonstrates due diligence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of due diligence on the part of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 in seeking the amendment. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs were aware of the alleged prior partition since 1993 but waited until 2008, after the trial had commenced, to seek an amendment. This delay, coupled with the fact that the amendment would change the fundamental nature of the suit, weighed heavily against allowing the amendment. The court emphasized that amendments cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when they are not bona fide and cause prejudice to the other party. The court also considered the fact that the Plaintiffs were trying to withdraw their initial admission that the partition had not taken place.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence and the amendment was not bona fide. The final decision was based on the established legal principle that amendments after the commencement of trial are not a matter of right and must be justified with sufficient reasons.

The Court’s reasoning is clear: the amendment was sought too late, it changed the fundamental nature of the suit, and it caused prejudice to the other party. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, thus preventing the Plaintiffs from amending their plaint.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The application for amendment was filed 15 years after the suit was instituted and after the trial had commenced.
• The Plaintiffs were aware of the alleged partition since 1993 but did not seek amendment within a reasonable time.
• The amendment would change the nature of the suit from one seeking partition to one claiming a prior partition.
• Allowing the amendment would cause serious prejudice to Plaintiff No. 6/Respondent No. 1.
• The Plaintiffs did not demonstrate due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

The Court quoted:
“The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.”

The Court quoted:
“There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances.”

The Court quoted:
“If the application for amendment is allowed, the same would lead to a travesty of justice, inasmuch as the Court would be allowing Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 to withdraw their admission made in the plaint that the partition had not taken place earlier.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar authoring the opinion.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the procedural aspects of the case, specifically the requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court interpreted the proviso strictly, emphasizing that amendments after the trial has commenced are not a matter of right and must be justified with sufficient reasons. The Court also considered the potential prejudice to the other party if the amendment were allowed.

The decision has implications for future cases involving amendment of pleadings. It reinforces the principle that amendments sought after the commencement of trial must be supported by due diligence and cannot be used to introduce a completely new case that was known to the party earlier.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but clarifies the application of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court’s decision emphasizes the need for parties to be diligent in raising their claims and not to use amendments as a means to delay or change the course of litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Parties must exercise due diligence in raising all relevant claims in their pleadings before the commencement of trial.
• Courts are generally reluctant to allow amendments to pleadings after the trial has commenced, especially if the amendment introduces a new and inconsistent case.
• Amendments cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be justified with sufficient reasons.
• The court will consider whether the amendment is bona fide and whether it causes prejudice to the other party.
• This decision reinforces the importance of timely and diligent litigation.

This judgment will likely discourage parties from filing belated applications for amendment of pleadings, particularly when the amendment seeks to introduce a completely new case that was known to the party earlier. It will also serve as a reminder that amendments cannot be used to withdraw admissions made in the pleadings.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The Court simply dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are not a matter of right and will only be allowed if the party seeking the amendment demonstrates due diligence and the amendment does not introduce a new and inconsistent case or cause prejudice to the other party. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and does not introduce any new legal principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to reject the amendment application. The Court emphasized that amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are not a matter of right and require due diligence and a bona fide reason. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence and that the proposed amendment would change the fundamental nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the other party.