Follow Liberal Approach & Not Technicalities While Deciding Application Seeking Amendment Of Pleadings: Supreme Court Reiterates
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against an order of the Telangana High Court.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
While allowing the amendment of pleadings as sought by the litigants, the Supreme Court has reiterated that while deciding an application seeking amendment, Courts should not delve into the technicalities of law and follow a liberal approach. The Apex Court further highlighted that the object of allowing amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against an order of the Telangana High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “It is a settled position of law that while deciding an application seeking amendment of pleadings, courts should not delve into the technicalities of law; rather, a liberal approach should be followed, inasmuch as the object and purpose of allowing amendment in the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.”
Senior Advocate L. Narsimha Reddy represented the Appellant while AOR Mukunda Rao Angara represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellants were the owners in possession of agricultural land. It was alleged that the respondent, having his land on the northern boundary of the suit property, allegedly started interfering with the appellants’ possession. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his agents. Along with the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the appellants, seeking an ex parte temporary injunction against the respondent, which was allowed by the Trial Court.
An Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a civil revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed. The appellants preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries and the same was allowed. The Trial Court allowed another application seeking amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries in the application seeking a temporary injunction. Aggrieved by such orders, the respondent preferred revision petitions, which came to be allowed. It was held that the amendment sought by the appellants, if allowed, would change the nature of the properties and would give rise to a new cause of action. It was in such circumstances that the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which provides for the amendment of pleadings, the Bench explained that the Courts have a discretion to 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.
The Bench also reiterated that the points of consideration for deciding an application for amendment include whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy and whether it can be allowed without causing injustice to the other side
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the Trial Court rightly allowed the application seeking amendment of the suit property in a suit for permanent injunction, since the same was necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy, one of them being whether the appellants were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent with respect to the suit property. The Bench further noted that the application seeking amendment was preferred by the appellants, although after the filing of the written statement by the respondent, but before the commencement of the trial.
“We therefore find that the trial court, by allowing the said application, had rightly held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, as he would have an opportunity to file an additional counter and additional written statement”, it added.
As per the Bench, the High Court was not right in setting aside the orders passed by the Trial Court. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench restored the order of the Trial Court and allowed the amendment sought by the appellants.
Cause Title: Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Anr. v. Gundlapally Ranga Rao (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 428)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate L. Narsimha Reddy, Advocates Kumar Abhishek, Pradeep Sahu, Santosh Kumar Yadav, AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam
Respondent: AOR Mukunda Rao Angara, Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, Advocates Niharika Singh, Chamundeswari Pemmasani, Arlene Noronha