Order 6 Rule 17 CPC| Amendment Application Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because It Was Filed After Substantial Period: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court held that if an Amendment Application is filed after a substantial period of time, it cannot be the sole parameter to reject the same under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court held thus in a Civil Revision Application challenging the Order of the Civil Judge in a case arising out of a Title Suit.
A Single Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, “… even though the disputed amendment application was filed after a substantial period of time, still it cannot be the sole parameter upon which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 can be rejected when those facts are necessary to be taken into account to come to a just conclusion and proper adjudication of the disputed question of facts in connection with the instant case.”
The Bench reiterated that if a fact comes to the knowledge of the opposite party after the filing of the principal written objection, it can still be incorporated under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, provided the amendment is relevant, and it does not introduce new pleas that could surprise the other party.
Advocate Mahendra Prasad Gupta represented the Petitioner while Advocate Debjit Mukherjee represented the Opposite Parties.
Factual Background -
In 2013, the Plaintiffs/Revisionists filed a Suit for declaration, permanent, and mandatory injunction against the Defendants before the Civil Judge which was registered as a Title Suit. Thereafter, they filed an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The Judge directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of nature, character, and possession over the property till next date of hearing. The Opposite Party filed an Application before the CESC authority for supplying electrical energy but due to its inaction, an Application was filed before the High Court.
Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the electric connection was provided to the premises of the Opposite Party. The Revisionists then filed an Application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC and also filed an Application for Contempt, alleging violation of an Order. However, the same was dismissed. During the pendency of the miscellaneous case, the Opposite Party filed an Application for amendment of his written objection and the same was allowed. Being aggrieved, the Revisional Application was filed by the Plaintiffs before the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “After careful scrutiny of the averments of the amendment application made by the opposite party herein, it has come to the notice of this Court that the matter sought to be amended was held after as it was a subsequent event. The tone and tenor of the amendment sought for, in my opinion, has got reasonable nexus with the actual dispute in question and it is absolutely just and necessary to be taken into account for proper adjudication.”
The Court added that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the case and, therefore, if the proposed amendment is allowed then it won’t prejudice either of the parties.
“The Court's discretion plays a crucial role in determining whether such amendments will be allowed, with a focus on ensuring justice and fair play in the proceedings”, it emphasised.
Furthermore, the Court said that the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC through the Amendment Act of 2002 does not contemplate a specific time frame within which the Petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has to be filed.
“The specific proviso envisages to cast a duty upon the person making the application to show that he was unable to introduce those proposed facts earlier in spite of due diligence. With regard to the case at hand, it is admitted position of fact that the proposed amendment deals with an issue that happened subsequent to the filing of principal written objection dated 21.08.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 1 herein deliberately did not introduce those facts earlier”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Application and refused to interfere with the Civil Judge’s Order.
Cause Title- Samir Ghosh & Anr. v. Pratap Ghosh & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Mahendra Prasad Gupta and Ayan Mitra.
Opposite Parties: Advocates Debjit Mukherjee, Susmita Chatterjee, Kaustav Bhattacharya, and Priyanka Jana.
