In a significant ruling concerning civil procedure, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that an amendment application seeking to incorporate a relief for possession—based on a cause of action arising during the pendency of a suit—cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of delay or because issues have already been framed.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, which had previously rejected the plaintiff’s request to amend his suit for declaration to include a decree for possession.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Anendra Singh (Plaintiff), instituted a suit for declaration on May 29, 2015, claiming ownership of the disputed property based on a Will executed by the original owner. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an amendment application in May 2022.
The petitioner alleged that in June 2019—while the suit was still ongoing—the defendants forcibly took possession of the property. Consequently, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include a decree for possession. However, the Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad) rejected the application on February 23, 2024. A subsequent revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, argued that the amendment was for a “consequential relief” because the cause of action (loss of possession) arose after the suit was filed. He contended that the application was filed within the three-year limitation period from the date of dispossession and that allowing the amendment would avoid “multiplicity of proceedings” since a separate suit for possession would otherwise be permissible.
Per Contra, the Counsel for the Respondents, Sri Ajai Singh Kushwaha, argued that the application was “highly delayed,” coming nearly three years after the alleged dispossession. He further submitted that the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C., as issues had already been framed and the trial had technically commenced.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court disagreed with the findings of the lower courts. Justice Nigam observed that the amendment was intended to incorporate a relief based on a post-filing event. The Court noted:
“Once a separate suit is permissible, there is no reason to deny a relief by amendment in the pending suit as the same will avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sampath Kumar v. Ayakannu and others (2002) 7 SCC 559, the Court emphasized that the basic structure of a suit is not altered by changing the nature of the relief when the cause of action arises pendente lite.
Addressing the issue of “commencement of trial” under Order VI Rule 17, the Court referred to Chitranshi Vs. Rajnarayan Tripathi [2025 (5) AWC 4867], which held that trial normally commences with the leading of evidence. In this case, while issues had been framed, no evidence had been led.
On the matter of delay, the Court quoted the Supreme Court:
“The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded… The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment.”
The Court also noted that the lower courts erred by “prejudging” the merits of the amendment (the dispute over who was actually in possession) at the application stage, stating that such facts must be decided after evidence is led.
Decision
The High Court quashed the orders dated February 23, 2024, and July 3, 2024. Considering that the matter had been pending since 2019, the Court chose not to remit the matter back and instead allowed the amendment application directly.
The petitioner has been directed to carry out the amendment within three weeks from the production of a certified copy of the order before the Trial Court.
- Case Title: Anendra Singh v. Ram Kishan and another
- Case No.: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 14134 of 2024
