AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Cowda, J.—Respondent has filed O.S. No. 20/1997 against the Petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Bantwal. The Petitioner by filing written statement has contested the suit. Issues were framed on 18.07.2002. The parties were before this Court earlier i.e., in WP. No. 5514/2009, which was disposed of on 31.05.2010. Keeping in view the observation made in the said order, the Plaintiff filed an application dated 28.07.2010 to amend the plaint i.e., to incorporate an additional relief. Though the application was opposed by the Petitioner, finding merit in the application i.e., by taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in the order dated 31.05.2010 passed in WP. No. 5514/2009, the Trial Court has allowed the application and has permitted the Plaintiff to incorporate an additional prayer in the plaint. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendant has filed this writ petition.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that, the will is dated 12.02.1989 and the suit was filed on 18.01.1997 and long thereafter, the application for amendment of the plaint i.e., to incorporate an additional prayer having been filed, the Trial Court without taking into consideration the nature of the suit and the delay in seeking relief, has mechanically allowed the application and hence interference is called for.
The amended provision of Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC is not applicable, since the suit has been instituted prior to the amendment. Proviso under Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC is not attracted. In the matter of grant of amendment, there is wide discretion conferred on the Court i.e., to permit the amendment if it is required for deciding the real question in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Court by taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in the order dated 31.05.2010 passed in WP. No. 5514/2009, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, has permitted the Plaintiff to incorporate additional prayer in the plaint. No prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner, inasmuch as the case of the Plaintiff has remained the same. The additional prayer has been permitted to be incorporated, on the basis of the existing pleading. There is neither a fresh cause of action nor is there any material change in the case of the Plaintiff.
In the said view of the matter, the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the Plaintiff to incorporate additional prayer i.e., declaration is justified. However, the amendment cannot relate back to the date of filing of the suit, but shall be effective only from the date the application seeking amendment of the plaint was filed. An issue relating to the bar of limitation shall be raised by the Trial Court and the matter tried and decided. In the result, writ petition stands disposed of subject to the observation made supra.
The Trial Court to decide the suit with utmost expedition, keeping in view the fact that, both the parties are senior citizens and the suit is already 13 years old. The Trial Court to decide the suit within six months from the date a copy of this order is supplied to it.
The Petitioner is entitled to file additional written statement within a period of two weeks from today.
Ordered accordingly.