Order VI Rule 17 CPC|Amendment Application Needn’t Be Rejected At Threshold Where Question Of Limitation Is Arguable & Depends Upon Disputed Facts: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering a Civil Appeal preferred against the order of the Orissa High Court refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC confers a discretionary power upon the Court to permit amendments which are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, once the trial has commenced, the exercise of such power is subject to the additional requirement that the Court must be satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

“As regards limitation, it is well settled that a claim which is clearly barred by limitation, particularly where its introduction would defeat an accrued right of the opposite party, is a relevant consideration in the exercise of discretion under Order VI Rule 17. At the same time, where the question of limitation is itself arguable and depends upon disputed facts, including the date or manner in 19 which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant document or transaction, the amendment need not necessarily be rejected at the threshold”, it added.

Factual Background

The appellants are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, Rabindranath Sahoo, who instituted a suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, recovery of possession, and rectification of the registered sale deeds under which he had purchased some properties. The appellants claimed that sale deeds were successively executed by the defendants in favour of other defendants. The original plaintiff filed a further application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083, stating that although the Hal Plot numbers and Khata numbers had been disclosed by the defendants in their written statement, the mutation case number had not been mentioned either in the written statement or in the additional written statement. The original plaintiff sought to incorporate the foundational pleadings relating to T.S. No.105 of 1998 and also sought a declaration that the final decree passed by the trial Court in the said suit was null and void.

During the pendency of the said amendment application, the original plaintiff died and his legal heirs, namely the present appellants, were brought on record. The trial Court rejected the proposed amendment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred a petition before the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Hence, the Civil Appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the proposed amendment is not founded upon a transaction or an event wholly unconnected with the subject matter of the suit, but upon a subsequent discovery of a decree which, according to the original plaintiff, has a bearing upon the title to a portion of the very property in dispute. According to the Bench, the record indicating that certified copies of the plaint and final decree were obtained on June 22, 2020 was a relevant circumstance in assessing the plea of due diligence.

“Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the explanation furnished by the appellants cannot, at this stage, be characterised as a mere omission, inadvertence or negligence. The subsequent discovery of the compromise proceedings, coupled with the assertion that the original plaintiff was not a party to those proceedings and that the source of title of the vendors was not disclosed in the written statement, provides a sufficient basis for accepting the plea of due diligence for the purposes of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The statutory requirement is therefore satisfied”, it held.

“The objection as to prejudice also does not warrant rejection of the amendment. The prejudice relied upon by the respondents principally arises from the additional factual and legal issues which they would now be required to meet. Such prejudice can adequately be addressed by permitting the respondents to file an additional written statement and where necessary, by imposing appropriate costs. The mere fact that an amendment requires the opposite party to meet additional pleadings or issues does not, by itself, warrant refusal of the amendment where the amendment is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the controversy”, it stated.

Holding that the requirement of due diligence contemplated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC stood satisfied , the Bench ordered, “The appropriate course therefore is to permit the amendment subject to costs, while preserving the respondents’ right to file their additional pleadings and to raise all objections available to them in law.”

Thus, setting aside the impugned orders , the Bench allowed the application for amendment, subject to payment of costs of Rs25,00 to the contesting respondents.

Cause Title: Haramani Sahoo and Others v. Lalita Nayak and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1112)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Aditya Narayan Tripathy, AOR Kedar Nath Tripathy

Respondent: Advocates Amarendra Bal, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Shyam Singh Chauhan, Sk Warish Ali, Kanika, AOR Raj Singh Rana, Advocate V. S. Dubey

Click here to read/download Judgment