SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO PLAINT, AS IT WAS TIME-BARRED

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar and Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgement dated 29-02-2024 in the matter of Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others Civil Appeal No. 2886 / 2012 and held the ancestral property dispute provides an in-depth insight into the intricacies of legal complexities that are often involved in such disputes. The Apex Court’s decision to firmly reject the Amendment Application that was time-barred, highlights the importance of preserving legal precedents and ensuring fair and just legal outcomes. The Supreme Court recognized the significance of protecting the rights and interests of all Parties involved and emphasized the need to maintain the sanctity of the legal process.

FACTS:

i) That the aforesaid Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by one, Basavaraj (Appellant) against one, Indira, Shailaja, Shivasharnappa, and three others (Respondents), challenged the Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, (High Court) which allowed the Application filed by one Indira (Respondent No.1) and Shailaja (Respondent No.2) for Amendment of Plaint, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/- vide Impugned Order 18.08.2010 passed in P. No. 82086 of 2010, by the Ld. Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, Karnataka.

ii) Accordingly, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 initiated legal proceedings in 2005 and filed a Suit bearing Original Suit No. 151 of 2005 before the Ld. First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gulbarga seeking Partition of the Ancestral Property. They contended that no actual partition took place despite the Property being ancestral.

iii) During the proceedings, it came before the Civil Court that there existed a Compromise Decree dated 14.10.2004, based on a Compromise which had been previously executed between the Parties involved. However, notably, no challenge to the validity of this Compromise Decree was raised in the Original Suit filed by Respondents.

iv) Subsequently, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 sought an Amendment to the Plaint. They wished to include a Prayer seeking a declaration from the Court that the Compromise Decree of 14.10.2004 was null and void.

v) The Trial Court, upon considering the Amendment Application, declined to grant the requested amendment. It reasoned that the Application was time-barred and would unfairly prejudice the Appellant.

vi) Aggrieved, by the Trial Court’s Order dated 31.05.2010, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 appealed to the High Court. The High Court, however, took a different stance. The High Court allowed the Amendment Application, believing that it was essential to ensure complete justice among the Parties involved.

vii) Dissatisfied by the Order dated of the High Court 18.08.2010, the Appellant, filed an Appeal on 01.12.2010 in the Supreme Court.

TRIAL COURT:

I) The Trial Court found that the Respondents, in their Application seeking an Amendment to the Plaint, failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking the relief of declaration regarding the nullity of the Compromise Decree at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

II) Further, the Court noted that the Respondents’ plea of oversight was not sufficient to warrant an Amendment to the Pleadings, especially considering that the facts regarding the Compromise Decree were already known to them during the trial.

III) Additionally, the Trial Court observed that the relief sought through the proposed Amendment was Time-Barred, as the Compromise Decree was passed in 2004, and the Application for Amendment was filed in 2010, beyond the applicable limitation period.

IV) Furthermore, the Trial Court determined that allowing the proposed amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the Suit, from one seeking partition to one seeking a declaration of the nullity of the Compromise Decree. This change was deemed impermissible under the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the amendment sought would prejudice the Appellant and potentially lead to a multiplicity of litigation.

HIGH COURT:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 31.05.2010 of the Trial Court, the Appellant filed W.P. No. 82086 of 2010, before the Hon’ble High Court. The High Court, vide Order dated 18.08.2010, made the following observations:

A) The High Court found that the Application filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 seeking an Amendment to the Plaint was justified. The Court allowed the Amendment, permitting the addition of a prayer for a declaration that the Compromise Decree dated 14.10.2004 was null and void.

B) The High Court’s decision was based on the belief that the Amendment would facilitate complete justice among the Parties, as it would prevent multiplicity of litigation and address the oversight on the part of Respondents No. 1 and 2 in not seeking the relief earlier.

C) The High Court also considered the argument that the relief sought through the proposed amendment was time-barred. However, it appears that the High Court did not find this to be a sufficient reason to deny the amendment, likely due to its determination that the amendment would serve the interests of justice by addressing the oversight and facilitating a fair resolution of the dispute.

D) Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dismissing the Application for amendment and allowed the proposed amendment to the Plaint, subject to payment of costs by Respondents No. 1 and 2.

SUPREME COURT:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 18.08.2010 of the High Court, the Appellant filed Civil No. 2886 / 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was registered on 01.12.2010. The Apex Court, vide Order dated 29.02.2024, made the following observations:

ISSUES:

The main issue in the case revolved around whether to allow the amendment to the Plaint sought by Respondents No. 1 and 2. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether to permit the addition of a prayer for a declaration that the Compromise Decree dated 14.10.2004 was null and void.

OBSERVATIONS:

1) The Apex Court held this case in favour of the Appellant and against Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Bench overturned the decision of the High Court and dismissed the Application for Amendment of the Plaint.

2) The Supreme Court held that allowing the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the Appellant. The Court emphasized that the relief sought through the Amendment was time-barred, as the Compromise Decree was passed in 2004, and the Application for Amendment was filed in 2010, well beyond the applicable limitation period. The Apex Court reasoned that since the right to challenge the Compromise Decree had accrued in favour of the Appellant with time, this right could not be taken away by allowing the Amendment.

3) Additionally, the Bench noted that the Amendment sought would fundamentally change the nature of the Suit from one seeking Partition to one seeking a Declaration of the nullity of the Compromise Decree. It held that such a change was impermissible under the circumstances of the case.

4) Furthermore, the Apex Court pointed out that some Parties mentioned in the Compromise Decree were not Parties to the present litigation, which raised concerns about the maintainability of the challenge to the Compromise Decree in the present Suit.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the aforementioned observations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dated 18.08.2010 dismissed the Application for Amendment, and awarded Costs to the Appellant. Further, the Apex Court took the Appellant’s Side and ruled that the proposed Amendment was time-barred and if allowed, would cause prejudice to the Appellant. Further, allowing the Amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the Suit and potentially affect the Parties not involved in the present litigation. The Appeal was allowed and the Order dated 31.05.2010 was upheld and the High Court Order dated 18.08.2010 was set aside.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer