O.14 R.5 CPC | Courts Can Amend Or Strike Out Issues Anytime Before Decree, But Must Hear Parties And Allow Evidence: J&K High Court

However a bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that the exercise of such power necessitates giving parties the opportunity to present evidence and be heard on the amended or struck-out issues, even if evidence has already been led. The Court emphasised that striking out an issue without consent or hearing the parties violates the fundamental principles of natural justice.

Commenting on the mandate of the above provisions the court observed,

“.. such power may be exercised after the commencement of the proceedings, at the stage of arguments, or even after the closing of the arguments.. when an issue is amended, the parties should be given an opportunity of leading evidence as also heard on the amended issue, even though the parties may have led evidence on such amended issues, so is similar the position of law vis a vis striking off of an issue that when a court strike out an issue, at any stage of the proceedings, such issue should not be struck off or deleted without the consent of the parties and without hearing the parties”

Background:

The case originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant, Govind Ram, against Sat Pal, the predecessor of respondents 1 to 4, regarding two kanals of land in Kathua. The appellant claimed ownership and possession of the land while asserting that five marlas were agreed to be sold to proforma respondents based on agreements dated 2007. The defendant denied these claims, stating he had purchased one kanal of the disputed land in 1988 and had been in possession since.

The trial court framed six issues, including the appellant's ownership and possession and the defendant's purchase claim. After evidence was presented, the trial court modified an issue and reframed it regarding possession. The suit was dismissed in 2019, concluding the plaintiff failed to prove possession.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Kathua, which upheld the trial court's decision in March 2023. The appellate court struck off certain issues, concluding the defendant had proven his possession and purchase. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the High Court.

The appellant argued that both lower courts breached legal principles by amending and striking issues without providing a chance to present evidence or arguments. Hence the judgment contravened the Evidence Act and Transfer of Property Act, he contended.

Court Observations:

Justice Wani thoroughly examined the procedural and substantive aspects of the case, focusing on the powers granted under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC. He noted that the provision allows courts to amend or frame additional issues and strike out issues that are wrongly framed. This authority, he observed, is broad and can be exercised at any stage of the suit before a decree is passed, including after the commencement of proceedings, during arguments, or even after arguments have concluded.

The Court emphasized, however, that the exercise of this power must comply with certain procedural safeguards. The court went on to explain that when an issue is amended, the parties must be given an opportunity to lead evidence and present arguments on the amended issue as this requirement ensures that the parties are not prejudiced by the modification.

Similarly, the court added that if an issue is struck out, the court must obtain the parties' consent and afford them a chance to be heard.

In the present case, Justice Wani observed that the trial court violated these principles by modifying the first issue after the conclusion of arguments without giving the parties an opportunity to address the amended issue. The onus of proving the issue had been placed on the plaintiff, making it essential to hear the parties before such a modification, he underscored.

Noting that the appellate court compounded the procedural irregularities by striking off issues without providing any hearing or opportunity to the parties to contest the deletion Justice Wani highlighted that this omission was a gross violation of procedural fairness and natural justice.

After analyzing the procedural lapses, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the appellate court. It thus directed that the suit be remanded to the trial court for retrial, beginning from the stage of framing issues.

Case Title: Govind Ram Vs Vidhya Devi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 333

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment