Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 203 (ORI)

Subhankar Sarangi v. Raghunath Tripathy

2014-03-27

B.R.SARANGI

body2014
JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed this petition assailing the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bargarh in Civil Suit No. 195 of 2007 under Annexure-5 rejecting the application filed for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. 2. The epitome of the facts of the case is that the petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed C.S. No. 195 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh seeking for declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs’ grandfather had purchased some land as mentioned in the schedule vide registered sale deed nos.6405, 6027 and 263 in between 1971 and 1978. On receipt of consideration money and after execution of sale deed, possession was delivered in the year 1971 and 1978 respectively. Late Bhojraj Sarangi, the grandfather of the plaintiffs had executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs, i.e., his grand sons, which was duly executed by the testators in presence of the attesting witnesses, his son, daughter-in-law and some gentlemen. After execution of the sale deed, Late Bhojraj Sarangi filed an application before the Tahasildar for mutation of the land, but the Tahasildar refused to accept the said application as the sale deed contained his Hamid settlement plot. Therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land. 3. On being noticed, defendant-opposite party no.1 appeared and filed his written statement admitting the case of the plaintiffs, whereas defendant-opposite party no.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 4. In course of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioners having realized that certain facts have not been specifically pleaded in the plaint, which have bearing on the merits of the case, filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint vide Annexure-3 to this writ petition. In the said application, they have mentioned that after purchasing the land in between 1971 and 1978, Late Bhojraj Sarangi had constructed a pucca house with tile roofs. In the year 1978 he also purchased the adjacent land from defendant no.1. After the house was constructed it was included in Bargarh Municipality bearing Holding No.2112 dated 27.2.1976. In the said application, they have mentioned that after purchasing the land in between 1971 and 1978, Late Bhojraj Sarangi had constructed a pucca house with tile roofs. In the year 1978 he also purchased the adjacent land from defendant no.1. After the house was constructed it was included in Bargarh Municipality bearing Holding No.2112 dated 27.2.1976. Subsequently, he removed the tile roof and constructed a pucca double storied building, which is being possessed by the plaintiff-petitioners. Late Bhojraj Sarangi had also filed T.S. No. 59 of 1982 for easmentary right. 5. Defendant no.2 filed objection to such proposed amendment under Annexure-4. 6. Learned trial court upon hearing the parties, rejected the said petition for amendment on the ground that the plaintiffs have not assigned any reason to show that in spite of due diligence, they could not plead these facts, which they want to incorporate by way of amendment to the plaint. Further, the trial court also observed that the amendment sought for, if allowed, will change the nature and character of the suit, and thereby the defendant will be prejudiced. 7. Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners states that the amendment sought for is clarificatory in nature in view of the fact that the plaintiff-petitioners have specifically pleaded in the application that after execution of the sale deed, delivery of possession was given to Late Bhojraj Sarangi and since then he was possessing the land and after him, the plaintiff-petitioners are in possession of the same. By way of amendment the plaintiff-petitioners wanted to clarify that the house was constructed on the said plot by Late Bhojraj Sarangi and it has been included in the Bargarh Municipality. Therefore, the introduction of fact being clarificatory in nature, will not affect the nature and character of the suit, which was filed for declaration or right, title and interest and confirmation of possession and therefore no prejudice will be caused to defendant no.2. On the contrary, if the amendment will not be allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of proceeding, which has not been considered by the learned trial court. It is further argued that even if the application for amendment has been filed at belated stage, the same should not be refused as the same is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. It is further argued that even if the application for amendment has been filed at belated stage, the same should not be refused as the same is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. To substantiate such contention, she has relied upon the judgments in Surendra Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, 2009 (II) OLR (SC), 880, and Gangadhar Muduli v. Maguni Mohanty and another, 2012(Supp.II) OLR 98. 8. Though the notice issued has become sufficient against the opposite parties, none appears on their behalf. Since the suit is of the year 2007 and the same has been stayed by this Court on 12.1.2010 in Misc. Case No. 15714 of 2009, this Court has proceeded with the matter for final disposal as the defendant-opposite parties did not choose to appear in the case. 9. Order 6, Rule 17, CPC deals with amendment of pleading, which reads as follows : “17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties; Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” The proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC puts an embargo to entertain an application for amendment after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, it is to be examined whether the amendment sought for by the plaintiff after commencement of trial can be permitted or not. 10. In view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, it is to be examined whether the amendment sought for by the plaintiff after commencement of trial can be permitted or not. 10. In Chandra Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, AIR 2008 SC 2234 the apex Court considering the provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 17, CPC and the proviso thereof and analyzing the meaning of “due diligence” has stated as follows : “x x x x However, if it is established that in spite of “due diligence” the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial depending on the circumstances, the court is free to order such application. The words “due diligence” has not been defined in the Code. According to Oxford Dictionary (Editiion 2006), the word “diligence” means careful and persistent application or effort. “Diligent” means careful and steady in application to one’s work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), “diligence” means a continual effort to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation. “Due diligence” means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Pharases by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edition 13A) “due diligence”, in law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. “Due diligence” means reasonable diligence; it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. It is clear that unless the party takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the commencement of trial. As mentioned earlier, in the case on hand, the application itself came to be filed only after 18 years and till the death of her first son Sunit Gupta, Chartered Accountant, had not taken any steps about the so-called agreement. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness.” 11. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness.” 11. In Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, AIR 2009 SC 1433 , the apex Court has held that it is the primary duty of the Court to decide as to whether such amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute in between the parties. Only if such condition is fulfilled amendment is to be allowed. Further, the proviso appended to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC restricts the power of the Court and puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint. 12. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs and others, (2005)12 SCC 1, the apex Court cautioned that delay and latches on the part of the parties to the proceeding would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing the application for amendment of the pleadings. 13. Taking into account the provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 17, CPC and the law laid down by the apex Court referred to supra, it is to be adjudged whether the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs can be allowed at this stage. The application for amendment of plaint has been filed at a stage after commencement of trial when the plaintiffs had already adduced evidence of three witnesses who have been examined and cross-examined and as such, while seeking such amendment, the application for amendment does not contain any reason to show “due diligence” for seeking the amendment at belated stage more so, the facts, which the plaintiffs want to incorporate by way of amendment, are already on record to the extent that after execution of the sale deed, delivery of possession was given to Late Bhojraj Sarangi and since then he was in possession of the land and after him, the plaintiff-petitioners are in possession of the same. If it is the case of the plaintiffs that after execution of sale deed, delivery of possession having been given, Late Bhojraj Sarangi possessed the land and after him, the present petitioners, whether Late Bhojraj Sarangi had constructed a house after remaining in possession and the said house was included in the holding under Bargarh Municipality, which the plaintiffs-petitioners want to bring on record by way of amendment, is necessary and corollary to the facts already pleaded in the plaint. Even if the same is not brought by way of amendment, that itself cannot take away the rights of the plaintiff-petitioners to remain in possession of the property in question. Therefore, the amendment sought, factually has no relevance save and except to buy some time in a proceeding for no reasons. On the other hand, no “due diligence” has been shown such filing of such amendment application, thereby in view of the embargo to the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, the Court has got limited jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment after trial has commenced. In absence of any specific pleading with regard to “due diligence”, the amendment sought cannot be allowed. In Pramod Gupta (supra), the apex Court has cautioned that delay and latches on the part of the parties to the proceeding also are the relevant factors for allowing or disallowing the application for amendment of the pleading. After commencement of trial, when three witnesses have already been examined from the side of the plaintiff, the application filed for amendment without assigning any reason showing due diligence, should not have been allowed. 14. So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Surendra Kumar Sharma (supra) and Gangadhar Muduli (supra) is concerned, considering the factual difference between the present case and the cited cases, this Court is of the view that the said judgments are not applicable to the present context. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the petition for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh in Civil Suit No. 195 of 2007 under Annexure-5 is confirmed. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.