INTRODUCTION
The commencement of any lawsuit typically starts with its pleadings. Being the cornerstone of any suit it guides the parties in formation of their arguments; therefore, amendment in the Pleadings plays a major role in any suit, it serves the purpose of bringing the parties to a definite issue so that no new facts are pleaded during the course of hearing. It also reduces delay, as both parties are aware of each other’s contentions, cause of action and are clear on the nature of relief that has been sought by the Parties to a suit. Pleading is an art and backbone of any suit, therefore parties/litigants must conduct due diligence, prior to filing of any Pleading before any Court. Recently, the Apex Court in its decision of Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors.laid down guiding principles to be adhered while considering and dealing with amendment to pleadings.
BACKGROUND
The aforesaid case revolves around a Partition Suit in which a decree of compromise was already passed in the year, 2004. Thereafter, the Respondent sought amendment to the Plaint in the year 2010 when the suit was at ‘fag end’. Moreover, the amendment sought by the respondents was for adding a prayer for declaration of compromise decree being ‘null and void’ and provided reason for such addition to be ‘oversight and mistake.’
ANALYSIS
It is a well settled principle that the Application for amendment remains impermissible in case the fundamental nature of the suit has been altered or if there is any new or inconsistent case. In the case at hand, the basic nature of the suit was of partition and separate possession, however, the respondents requested for declaration of compromise decree to be declared as null & void, thereby, changing the nature of the suit. This was noted as prima-facie hurdle for claiming amendment.
Apart from above, in order to maintain any application seeking amendment with regards to the Pleadings, or particularly the plaint as the case in hand, one must meet the pre-requisites mentioned in Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The proviso thereof clearly highlights the importance of ‘due diligence’ required to amend the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. In the case of Basavaraj, this requirement of due diligence was lacking, and on the contrary the only ground pleaded in support of amendment was an oversight. Moreover, seeking amendment to the pleadings is not a matter of right, rather it is for the court to decide after analyzing the fulfilment of the condition prescribed in Order VI Rule 17 whether to allow any amendment or not, and unless the interested party seeking amendment shows their due diligence, the relief sought, ought to not be given.
It is pertinent to note that the difference in the time from filling the decree of compromise and the amendment towards the same is Five (5) years and Three (3) months. However, Article 59 in Part-IV of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963 states that the limitation for challenging any decree is three years. Resultantly, the amendment sought was barred by limitation.
The Court was of the opinion that with regards to compromise decree, the decision was held in favour of the Appellant which cannot be taken back. Moreover, if we allow the amendment to the Plaint it will certainly cause prejudice towards Appellant. Therefore, the court has used the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation by stating “What cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be indirectly”. The legal maxim, ‘quod non fieridebet, factum valet’ (what ought not to be done legally, should not be done through a legal fiction) supports the doctrine of colorable legislation. In addition, it eliminates any chances that may cause prejudice to the appellant.
To summarize the Court’s view, the Court has given the following reasons to allow the Appeal filed in the said case and dismiss the application filed for amendment of the plaint:
Firstly, respondents did not plead due diligence even when the amendment was filed after the commencement of the trial.
Secondly, the amendment filed by the respondents was time barred.
Thirdly, the amendment filed is changing the nature of the suit which is impermissible.
Lastly, it will cause prejudice to the appellant.
CONCLUSION
The Court's opinion, as articulated above, explains critical legal principles surrounding the amendment of pleadings and the limitation period for claiming amendment. The Court aptly underscored the fact that any attempt to amend plaint beyond the statutory limitation period potentially undermines the procedural integrity and judicial efficacy of the legal system.
The Court’s decision of disallowing amendment was also based on the fact that by way of amendment in the Plaint, the Respondent had sought to implead the parties who were not originally parties to the litigation or the compromise decree. Such factual status in the case rendered the proceedings suffer from fundamental procedural flaw, as any relief sought therein pertaining to the setting aside of the compromise decree would be legally untenable in the absence of all relevant parties before the Court.
The Court’s reasoned views in the Judgment, underlines the importance of upholding procedural regularity, safeguarding accrued rights, and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process. It was rightly held that by delineating the statutory constraints and procedural imperatives governing amendments to pleadings, the Court effectively fortifies the overarching principles of fairness, equity, and legal certainty within the ambit of Civil Litigation.
The above article is authored by Ms. Sonali Khanna, Senior Associate.