CPC | Not Necessary To Assess Legality Of Underlying Circumstances While Allowing Amendment To Plaints: J&K High Court

“The court cannot give its final verdict in the present petition about the proceedings which are required to be taken out in the suit by the trial court as the various factors are required to be determined while finally deciding the suit. The court while allowing the application for amendment is not required to go into the legality or illegality of the circumstances on the basis of which the amendment is sought for in the plaint."

The case revolved around a land dispute against some municipal authorities where the key contention was the withdrawal of co-plaintiffs from the suit. This prompted the remaining plaintiff to seek an amendment to the original complaint. The defendants (petitioners here) contested the amendment, arguing that it would alter the nature of the suit and raised questions about the jurisdiction of the court.

However, the trial court allowed the amendment on the ground that certain events had taken place after the institution of the suit and hence there was no impediment in allowing the application. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners moved the High Court. 

The petitioners submitted that the trial court had not passed the order in accordance with law since the reason given in the order prima facie did not fall within the parameters of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. They added that the trial court has by allowing amendment of the plaint, permitted the respondents to challenge the order passed by municipal authorities against which a suit is not maintainable.

Justice Gupta noted that the trial court had allowed the amendment to the plaintiff's complaint primarily on the ground that the amendment would not change the fundamental nature of the case. The court further observed that certain events had occurred after the initiation of the suit, specifically pertaining to permissions granted by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, which had been cancelled in 2020 and that these developments justified the amendment.

Deliberating on the contention of the petitioners that the trial court's decision was legally flawed as it allowed the Respondent/plaintiff to challenge municipal authorities' orders beyond the court's jurisdiction, the bench said that the court's role in permitting an amendment was not to determine the merits of the case or the legality of the circumstances being challenged. The court's decision was solely focused on whether the amendment should be allowed as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, it underscored.

It added,

“The merits of the contents sought to be incorporated in the amended plaint cannot be judged at the time of disposal of the application but can be considered after framing of additional issue, if required.”

Finding no illegality in the trial court's decision to allow the amendment, the court held held that the withdrawal of co-plaintiffs should not prejudice the rights of the remaining plaintiff, and the defendants would not be unduly affected by the amendment.

The petition was accordingly dismissed. 

Case Title: Mohammad Rafiq Mir Vs Mohamad Bhat

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 246

Case No: CM (M) No. 84/2023 CM No. 2619/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment