The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that while amendments to pleadings can be allowed at any stage of legal proceedings, such changes must not cause prejudice to the other party. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, came in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors.
The Court was examining whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court was correct in permitting the amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent, Suman Agarwal, to include a challenge to a will allegedly executed by her mother, Smt. Katoribai, as part of an ongoing family property dispute. The trial court had initially rejected the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the defendant, Dinesh Goyal, to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and partition of a property located at Gangamai Santar, Murar, District Gwalior. The property, originally purchased by the parties’ mother, Smt. Katoribai, through a registered sale deed in 1987, became the subject of dispute after her passing in 2013. The defendant, Dinesh Goyal, claimed that the property was bequeathed to him under a will executed by Smt. Katoribai in January 2013, while the plaintiff, Suman Agarwal, asserted her right to a one-fifth share of the property.
In response to the defendant’s claim, the plaintiff sought to amend her plaint to challenge the validity of the will, arguing that the signature of Smt. Katoribai on the document was forged. The trial court dismissed the application for amendment, but the High Court allowed it, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues and the Court’s Observations
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had erred in allowing the amendment after the commencement of trial, particularly in light of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendments once the trial has begun unless the court is convinced that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a liberal approach to amendments, citing well-established precedents. The bench observed that “all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”
However, the Court emphasized that such amendments must not prejudice the other party, noting that “amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.”
The Court’s Reasoning
In this case, the Court noted that the amendment sought by Suman Agarwal was necessary for determining the real controversy, i.e., the genuineness of the will, which formed the basis of the defendant’s claim to sole ownership of the property. The Court pointed out that without deciding the question of the will’s authenticity, the partition of the disputed property could not proceed fairly.
The bench further observed, “A hyper-technical approach should be avoided when deciding amendment applications, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs, and when the amendment is necessary to address the substantive rights of the parties.”
Additionally, the Court clarified that the plaintiff’s application was not based on a new cause of action but sought to bring in details crucial for the adjudication of the dispute. As the cross-examination of the plaintiff had not yet commenced at the trial stage, the Court ruled that the amendment did not cause prejudice to the defendant.
Final Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow the amendment. It directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, including determining the genuineness of the will, which would significantly impact the partition of the disputed property.
In its concluding remarks, the Court reiterated the principles governing the amendment of pleadings: “Amendments must be allowed when they are necessary to determine the real questions in controversy and do not result in injustice to the other side.” The Court emphasized that judicial processes should not be delayed unnecessarily and urged the lower courts to resolve the matter expeditiously.
