PATNA, India, April 23 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on March 23:

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Benipatti in P.S. Case No. 09 of 2005, by which the learned Sub-Judge has dismissed the amendment petition filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Partition Suit No. 9 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for partition of suit properties in which defendants/petitioners had filed amendment petition dated 30.11.2016 against which rejoinder has already been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and lastly after hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court has rejected the said amendment petition by the impugned order against which the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed. 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants further submits that the proposed amendment is only explanatory regarding previous partition and petitioners want to add the schedule of respective parties through which the suit properties was partitioned earlier in his W.S. He further submits that proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. He also submits that the learned Sub-Judge has not considered the fact that proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs submits that after commencing the trial, the defendants/petitioners cannot be permitted to amend their written statements.

During course of hearing, reliance was placed on a judgment reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705 (Basavaraj versus Indira and Others) and another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in a Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30324 of 2019. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"11.2. Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:-

(i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMTk5MSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-FM555BBQR5c=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.