In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has emphasized that courts should not delve into the merits of a case when considering applications for amendment of plaints under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment was delivered by Justice Shampa Sarkar in the case of Sri Anup Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Smt. Shanti Rani Roy & Ors. (C.O. 1872 of 2023 and C.O. 1869 of 2023).
Background of the Case:
The case originated from Title Suit No. 218 of 2020 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Purulia. The plaintiffs, Sri Anup Kumar Sharma and others, had filed applications to amend their plaint and injunction application. They sought to correct the R.S. Khatian number from 3522 to 3322 and change the description of the building from two-storied to one-storied. Additionally, they wanted to incorporate subsequent events related to their alleged dispossession from the suit property and include a prayer for recovery of khas possession.
The trial court rejected these amendment applications, citing an earlier rejection of a similar request to correct the R.S. Khatian number. Moreover, the court assessed the merits of the alleged dispossession, considering orders passed in related writ petitions (WPA 4318 of 2020 and MAT 708 of 2020) which had ruled in favor of the defendants’ right to reside in the property.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the amendment applications and examining the merits of the proposed amendments.
Justice Shampa Sarkar, in her ruling, held that the trial court had erred in its approach. The court observed, “The law is well-settled. Amendment of the plaint should be allowed liberally, except when the amendment sought to be incorporated was ex facie barred by limitation or where the plaintiffs wanted to incorporate contrary pleas. The merits of the amendment was not to be looked into by the learned court”.
The High Court emphasized that corrections to the schedule were formal in nature and did not alter the character of the suit or affect any vested rights of the defendants. Regarding the incorporation of subsequent events and the prayer for recovery of possession, the court stated, “Whether the contentions of the plaintiffs were correct or not would be a matter of evidence”.
Justice Sarkar criticized the trial court’s approach, noting, “The learned judge, while discussing the scope of an amendment application, had gone beyond the pleadings to decide whether such prayer and additional pleadings were available to the petitioners or not. The orders passed in the writ petition as also in the appeal therefrom were taken into consideration. This was not the correct procedure”.
The High Court allowed the amendments, directing that they should be incorporated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to enable a comprehensive adjudication of all issues between the parties.
Also Read
Parties and Counsel:
Petitioners: Sri Anup Kumar Sharma & Ors., represented by Ms. Sohini Chakraborty and Mr. Arijit Sarkar
Opposite Parties: Smt. Shanti Rani Roy & Ors., represented by Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, Ms. Soma Chakraborty, and Mr. Nikhil Gupta
