- Case
- SHISHUPAL S/O PATIRAM TARJUDE AND OTHERS v. VANDANA W/O PRABHUDAS DESHMUKH AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 10-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure.
Facts: The plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming ownership of agricultural land purchased by their parents from the father of defendant No. 1. The defendants contested the suit, claiming the land was joint family property and the sale deed was executed under dubious circumstances. After the trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, they filed an appeal and sought to amend their pleadings (Exh. 38) to include the four boundaries of the suit property, a plaint map, an order from the Revenue Authority declaring them owners, and a consequential amendment related to court fees.
Procedural Posture: The District Judge-2, Bhandara, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23/2023, passed an order on 01.08.2024 directing that the amendment application (Exh. 38) be kept in abeyance and decided along with the appeal. The plaintiffs filed the present writ petition challenging this order of abeyance.
Issue: Did the first Appellate Court err in keeping the application for amendment of pleadings in abeyance, to be decided along with the final appeal, instead of deciding it immediately? Specifically, does Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandate immediate consideration of amendment applications, or is the appellate court's approach permissible?
Holding: No, the first Appellate Court did not err. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of abeyance.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for amendment of pleadings at any stage, the Appellate Court rightly considered the consequences of allowing the amendment. The amendment sought included a declaration of ownership, which could affect the substantive rights of the other party. The Court noted that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the mutation entries and could have raised the issue in the original suit. The Appellate Court has the discretion to allow the application later if deemed necessary for complete justice, even after hearing the appeal. The Court also considered precedents arguing that appellate courts are not obligated to deal with amendment applications before the disposal of the appeal, especially when substantive rights are involved.
