9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Petition against order allowing amendment to relief clause u/s Order 6 Rule 17, CPC after 9 years of filing; Amendment barred by limitation u/s Article 113 of Limitation Act; Necessity of amendment for just decision of the case; Application of amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, CPC; Legal position on allowing amendments u/s Order 6 Rule 17, CPC. The petition challenged an order allowing the Plaintiff to amend the relief clause by inserting a specific relief for "vacant possession of the plot after demolition of the construction" under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC. The Petitioner contended that the suit was filed in 2001, and the amendment sought after 9 years was barred by limitation u/s Article 113 of the Limitation Act, citing Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, AIR 2009 SC 1433. The Respondent supported the amendment, stating it was necessary for a just decision as construction was raised during the suit despite an undertaking by the Defendants. Referring to Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan, AIR 2001 SC 699, the Respondent argued for the validity of the amendment. The suit involved reliefs for declaration, perpetual injunction, and mandatory injunction. The Plaintiff sought to amend the relief clause to specifically include "vacant possession after demolition of the construction." The Defendants disputed the timing of construction raising but acknowledged the matter for trial evidence. While the Plaintiff's evidence was complete, the Defendants' evidence was pending. The Apex Court clarified in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council (2007) 1 SCC 765 that the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was not applicable to cases filed before 1-7-2002, allowing the amendment post-trial commencement. The Plaintiff's amendment aimed to restore possession by removing the construction, enhancing the specificity of the relief clause. The Petitioner's limitation argument was refuted, citing Article 65 of the Limitation Act for the 12-year limitation on adverse possession. Referring to Ragu Thilak D. John and B.K.N. Pillai cases, the Apex Court emphasized the wide power to amend pleadings in the interest of justice, discouraging a hyper-technical approach. The amendment was deemed necessary for a just decision without altering the suit's nature. The High Court found no error in the Trial Court's order, dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
|
