2012 (1) TMI 342 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of pleadings u/s Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
3. Due diligence in filing amendments post-trial commencement.

Summary:

1. Amendment of Pleadings u/s Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was correct in allowing an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the trial had concluded and the matter was reserved for orders. The High Court had permitted the amendment sought by the Respondents to incorporate specific pleadings that were allegedly missed due to a typographical error. The Supreme Court noted that the application for amendment was filed on 24.09.2010, after the arguments were completed on 22.09.2010 and the matter was posted for judgment on 04.10.2010. The Court emphasized that the proviso to Rule 17 restricts amendments post-trial commencement unless due diligence is demonstrated.

2. Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act:
The Court reiterated that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates a specific averment in the plaint that the plaintiff has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. The absence of such an averment renders the suit for specific performance liable to dismissal. The Respondents' omission to include this averment was not considered a mere typographical error but a significant oversight.

3. Due Diligence in Filing Amendments Post-Trial Commencement:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the concept of due diligence, highlighting that it requires reasonable investigation before requesting certain kinds of relief. The Court found that the Respondents failed to exercise due diligence, as the omission of mandatory requirements running into several sentences could not be classified as a typographical error. The Court concluded that the trial court had rightly dismissed the amendment application, and the High Court erred in accepting the explanation of a typographical error.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 08.02.2011, agreeing with the trial court's decision to dismiss the amendment application. The civil appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.