Lakshmi Devi vs Vidya

B. Manohar, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.11.2011 made on I.A. II in P & SC No. 168/2010 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed by them seeking for amendment of petition incorporating the correct year of marriage.

The petitioners have filed P & SC No. 168/2010 seeking for issue of Succession Certificate, contending that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late B V Ananda Kumar. In the petition, the petitioners have wrongly mentioned the year of marriage as 1985 instead of 1975. The 1st respondent had filed written statement. The petitioners realized their mistake and made IA No. II under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment of the petition. The Trial Court by an order impugned in the writ petition rejected the said application on the ground that such amendment cannot be permitted. Hence, the order made on I.A. No. II has been questioned in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri T P Vivekananda, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Advocate, Sri M I Arun, appearing for 2nd respondent.

The petitioners have filed P & SC No. 168/2010 for issue of Succession Certificate contending that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late B V Ananda Kumar and that the marriage was held at Tirupati in the year 1985 in para - 2 of the plaint. Subsequently, after filing the written statement, the petitioners noticed that the year of the marriage has wrongly been mentioned as 1985 instead of 1975. Hence, they filed I.A. No. 2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment before commencement of trial.

A reading of provision under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC makes it clear that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and all such terms as may be just, and such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. In the instant case, before commencement of trial, the petitioners sought for amendment of the petition incorporating the correct year of the marriage. The incorporation of the year of marriage in the petition does not affect the interest of the respondents and it will not lead to alter the cause of action or nature of the suit. With a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the application in I.A. No. II has been filed to amend para 2 of the plaint. The present amendment sought for by the petitioners will not cause injustice to either of the parties. I find that the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application seeking for amendment is contrary to law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

The order dated 21.11.2011 made on I.A. II in P & SC No. 168/2010 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking for amendment of plaint incorporating the correct year of marriage is set aside.

The petitioners are permitted to carryout the amendment at para-2 of the petition incorporating the correct year of the marriage subject to proof. It is open to the respondents to file additional written statement, if any. It is also open to the parties to move the Trial Court for early disposal of P & SC.