Amendment Of Plaint After Trial To Reintroduce Relief Barred By Res Judicata Defeats Section 11 CPC: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that permitting amendment of pleadings after completion of evidence to incorporate a relief already rejected on merits in a prior suit between the same parties would undermine the doctrine of res judicata and defeat the finality of judicial decisions.
The Kerala High Court held that an amendment sought after completion of evidence to introduce a plea for recovery of possession, which had already been disallowed on merits in an earlier suit between the same parties, could not be permitted, as such a course would defeat the principles of res judicata embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court was hearing a miscellaneous first appeal arising from an order of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, which had rejected an application seeking amendment of the plaint at the stage when the suit stood posted for final hearing.
A Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish while dismissing the appeal, observed: “The question to be resolved in the case on hand is whether the amendment sought for after the completion of evidence to incorporate a plea of recovery of possession of the suit properties which was already disallowed by the Waqf Tribunal on merits after a full trial in a prior suit between the same parties, could be termed as one which subserves the ultimate cause of justice. The answer can only be in the negative since the very basis of the principles of res judicata embodied in Section 11 C.P.C would be defeated if such a course is adopted.”
Background
The dispute concerned properties claimed to be Waqf properties, with the appellant asserting rights in his capacity as mutawalli. An original suit was instituted before the Waqf Tribunal seeking declaratory relief and a permanent prohibitory injunction. Although allegations of illegal possession were raised, no prayer for recovery of possession was included at that stage.
Subsequently, a separate suit was instituted before the Waqf Tribunal seeking recovery of possession of the very same properties. That suit was dismissed after a full-fledged trial, with the Tribunal recording findings on merits against the claimant, including on competence to sue, absence of proof of lease arrangements, and failure to identify the properties.
After the dismissal of the recovery suit, the appellant sought to amend the plaint in the earlier suit, which was then at the stage of final hearing after the closure of evidence, to incorporate an identical prayer for recovery of possession. The Waqf Tribunal declined the amendment, leading to the present appeal.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the record of the prior proceedings and found that the earlier suit seeking recovery of possession had not been dismissed on any technical or procedural ground, but after a full trial and on the merits. The Tribunal had categorically held that the mutawalli was not empowered to institute a suit for the recovery of possession and had also recorded adverse findings on the evidence regarding possession, lease, and identification of the property.
The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the earlier dismissal was only on account of a lack of cause of action. It noted that the reasoning of the Tribunal demonstrated substantive adjudication of the claim for recovery of possession.
Turning to the amendment sought, the Court observed that the relief proposed to be introduced in the pending suit was identical to the relief already disallowed in the prior suit. Permitting such an amendment would, in effect, allow the appellant to reagitate the same issue before the same forum, thereby circumventing the bar of res judicata.
The Court reiterated that while Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers wide discretion to permit amendment of pleadings, the proviso restricts such power after commencement of trial, unless the party demonstrates that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The Court found that no such circumstance existed in the present case.
The Bench emphasised that res judicata is not merely a technical rule, but a principle founded on public policy to ensure finality of litigation and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Allowing an amendment that reintroduces a claim conclusively rejected earlier would defeat the very purpose of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court further noted that “the avowed objectives behind the concept of res judicata would be thrown to the winds if a litigant is permitted to circumvent the above bar by resorting to the indirect way of setting forth the proscribed plea by way of amendment in a pending suit between the same parties, that too, at a stage when the evidence is already over”.
Relying on precedents governing amendment of pleadings and the doctrine of res judicata, the Court concluded that the proposed amendment did not advance the cause of justice and would instead prejudice the respondents by reopening settled issues.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court held that an amendment sought after completion of evidence to incorporate a plea for recovery of possession, which had already been rejected on merits in a prior suit between the same parties, could not be permitted. It held that allowing such an amendment would defeat the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and amount to permitting a litigant to do indirectly what could not be done directly.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the Waqf Tribunal rejecting the amendment application and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K.J. Paul & Others
Appearances
Appellant: Shri K.H. Asif, Advocate; Shri C.A. Majeed, Advocate; Smt. Molty Majeed, Advocate; Shri P.B. Unnikrishnan Nair, Advocate; Smt. Sherin Biju, Advocate