Amendment of Pleadings in Partition Suit: Supreme Court Allows Late Amendment
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a crucial matter concerning the amendment of pleadings in a partition suit. The case involved a long-standing dispute between Mohinder Kumar Mehra (appellant) and Roop Rani Mehra & Ors. (respondents) over family properties in Delhi. The key legal question revolved around whether a plaintiff can amend their pleadings after the trial has commenced, particularly when the amendment seeks to introduce a new claim regarding a previously unmentioned property.
Background of the Case
The dispute in this case originated from the partition of properties inherited by the appellant and respondents. The appellant, Mohinder Kumar Mehra, filed Suit No. 2082 of 2009 seeking partition of a family property located at D-4, Lajpat Nagar, Part-II, New Delhi. Initially, he did not include another property, G-11, Nizamuddin, which was also a family asset.
During the trial, the appellant realized that he had an undivided share in the Nizamuddin property, which had already been sold by the first respondent in the year 2000. Consequently, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to amend the plaint and include a claim for a share in the sale proceeds of the Nizamuddin property.
Decisions by the Lower Courts
Trial Court Ruling
The Additional District Judge, Saket, dismissed the amendment application on 24.10.2016, holding that:
- The suit for claiming a share in the proceeds from the sale of the Nizamuddin property was barred by limitation.
- The claim for money should have been filed within three years from the date of sale in 2000.
- The amendment sought to introduce an entirely new cause of action after the commencement of the trial.
High Court Ruling
The appellant challenged the order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, reasoning that:
- Under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, an amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party demonstrates due diligence.
- The appellant had not provided any convincing reason as to why the Nizamuddin property was not included in the original plaint.
- The claim was time-barred, as the sale had occurred in 2000.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The claim for a share in the Nizamuddin property was not barred by limitation because, under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a claim for a share in joint family property is subject to a limitation period of twelve years.
- The amendment would not cause prejudice to the defendants, as they had already led evidence related to the amended claim.
- The plaintiff came to know about his share in the Nizamuddin property only in November 2010.
- The original omission was due to an oversight by the previous counsel, and courts should liberally allow amendments in pleadings.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The amendment was barred by the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as the trial had already commenced.
- The claim was time-barred, as the right to claim a share in the sale proceeds arose in 2000, and the suit was filed much later.
- The amendment introduced a completely new cause of action, which was not permissible at such a late stage.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, consisting of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered a landmark judgment on 11.12.2017. The Court held that the rejection of the amendment application was incorrect, and the amendment should have been allowed.
Key Observations by the Court
On the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17:
“The object of the newly inserted Rule 17 is to control filing of applications for amending the pleading subsequent to commencement of trial. The proviso, however, contains an exception by reserving the right of the Court to grant amendment even after commencement of the trial, when it is shown that in spite of diligence, the said pleas could not be taken earlier.”
On the Timing of the Amendment:
“Although technically the trial commenced when the date was fixed for leading evidence by the plaintiff, actually the amendment application was filed before the evidence was led by the plaintiff.”
On Limitation:
“Present is not a case of simply recovery of money. Plaintiff’s claim is to enforce a right to share in the Nizamuddin property, which was sold in the year 2000. The claim falls under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, which provides a twelve-year limitation for enforcing a right to share in joint family property.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court. The amendment application filed by the appellant was allowed. The Court directed that:
- The trial court shall allow the amendment and frame additional issues if necessary.
- Both parties may lead additional evidence if required.
- The entire process should be completed within three months.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that amendments should be allowed if they help in determining the real controversy in the case.
- The bar under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not absolute; courts can allow amendments if due diligence is demonstrated.
- In partition suits, claims regarding omitted joint family properties can be brought at a later stage if they fall within the twelve-year limitation period under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.
The judgment is a significant ruling on the issue of amendment of pleadings, particularly in partition suits, as it clarifies the interplay between procedural limitations and substantive justice.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs Roop Rani Mehra & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-12-2017.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
