Punjab & Haryana High Court: Trial Court Order Set Aside, Allowing Amendment To Pleadings After Dismissal Of Suit | OVI R17 CPC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Paramjit Singh Versus Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh observed and has recently allowed a revision petition and set aside the order of the lower appellate Court vide which it allowed respondent or plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, after dismissal of suit.
In the present case, the court held that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC specifically provides that amendment to pleadings cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial and unless it is concluded by the Court that despite due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter earlier.
The bench comprising of Justice Jaishree Thakur added that the amendment sought only on the ground that the suit property could not be properly explained in plaint due to “oversight” is no ground to allow the amendment for the lower appellate Court
Further, the court was dealing with a case where the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit property and for recovery of charges for illegal use and occupation of the said property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove defendant’s possession over the land. As far as the question of possession was concerned, the plaintiff failed to prove any site plan allegedly in possession of the defendant.
Therefore, an application was filled by the respondent or plaintiff wherein seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that boundaries of the suit property could not be explained properly due to oversight.
The said amendment was allowed by the lower appellant court stating that the amendment sought was, only explanatory which would help the Court arrive at a correct conclusion. It was also held to be relevant and bona fide.
Adding to it, the High Court noted that after dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, the amendment is being sought and that too exactly to fill the lacuna pointed out by trial in the dismissal order. The court held while allowing such an amendment would only be a misuse of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.