Skip to main content

Burden on the person who seeks amendment after commencement of the trial to show that the amendment could not have been sought earlier

In T.V. Sasikala and Ors. Vs. C.P. Joseph, after commencement of the examination of witnesses in the suit, the Plaintiff filed an application (Exhibit P5) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint. The Defendants filed objection to application raising various contentions. The trial Court allowed application. The Defendants filed this appeal before the High Court of Kerala challenging the legality and propriety of the trial court order.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court has allowed the amendment desired by the Defendant in the appeal with a cryptic order where there is a need for speaking order with reasons and is liable to be set aside for that reason alone.

The High Court further observed that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code provides that, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso to this rule states that, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, to some extent, curtails the absolute discretion of the court to allow amendment at any stage of the suit. If the application for amendment is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that inspite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. When the application for amendment filed by a party to the suit is after commencement of trial, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code.

Referring to various judgments, the High Court held that the trial in a suit commences on the date on which the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of a party or his witness is filed for the purpose of recording evidence. The bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code would be attracted to an application for amendment of pleadings filed after that date.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Revanna v. Anjanamma, AIR 2019 SC 940, the court observed that the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that inspite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier.

As all the above mentioned issues had not been considered by the trial court, the High Court remanded the application to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more