Amendment to plaint after cross examination
Balaji Bakthavathsal
(Querist) 27 February 2018
This query is : Resolved
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking partition on ancestral property excluding two legitimate legal heirs and suppressing the actual family details. The trial commenced and the plaintiff was cross examined. At this stage, can the plaintiff seek amendment to plaint and submit amended plaint to the court including the omitted legal heirs.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 27 February 2018
Yes that is possible under order 6 rule 17 of CPC. The plaintiff has to show that the in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter before the commencement of trail to satisfy the court to allow the amendment at this stage of the trail.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 27 February 2018
You may go thru;
9) With a view to shorten the litigation and speed up the trial of cases Rule 17 was omitted by amending Act 46 of 1999. This rule had been on the statute for ages and there was hardly a suit or proceeding where this provision had not been used. That was the reason it evoked much controversy leading to protest all over the country. Thereafter, the rule was restored in its original form by amending Act 22 of 2002 with a rider in the shape of the proviso limiting the power of amendment to some extent. The new proviso lays down that no application for amendment shall be allowed after thecommencement of trial, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. But whether a party has acted with due diligence or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This would, to some extent, limit the scope of amendment to pleadings, but would still vest enough powers in courts to deal with the unforeseen situations whenever they arise.
10) The entire object of the said amendment is to stall filing of applications for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and the parties had sufficient knowledge of the others case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the applications. Once, the trial commences on the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. In spite of the same, an exception is made in the newly inserted proviso where it is shown that in spite of due diligence, he could not raise a plea, it is for the court to consider the same. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any later application. As stated earlier, the reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite hearing of cases.
Supreme Court of India
Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008
Author: P Sathasivam
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1416302/
