No Amendment Of Plaint After Conclusion Of Evidence If It Alters Nature Of Suit Or Prejudices Accrued Rights Of Defendants: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that amendments in pleadings that alter the fundamental nature of a suit or prejudice accrued rights of the opposing party cannot be permitted.

The Court observed that a proposed amendment sought after the conclusion of evidence, which changes the very nature of the plaint and the source of title claimed by the plaintiff, is impermissible and prejudicial to the defendant.

Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case noted, “From this proposed amendment the very nature of the plaint and the very source of the title which the plaintiffs have averred to have been derived this property in suit is altogether changed that too after conclusion of evidence of both the parties. It would certainly prejudice to the rights and interest of the defendant which have accrued to them after conclusion of the evidence in the suit in question.”

“It is the settled law that no amendment can be allowed in the pleadings if the nature of the plaint or the nature of the defence case is altogether changed. It is also the settled law that if by way of amendment the very rights of the defendant which had accrued to him are being prejudiced that amendment cannot be allowed,” Justice Chand added.

The original suit was filed by the Opposite Party, Balram Mahato, seeking the cancellation of a sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the wife of the second defendant, claiming the execution was in contravention of Section 46(1)(b) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction concerning the suit property.

The plaintiff alleged that the property initially belonged to Hargovind Mahato, whose name was recorded in the 1964 settlement. Upon Hargovind's death, the property allegedly devolved upon Amrit Mahato and subsequently to the plaintiff, Balram Mahato, as Amrit's legal heir. Contrarily, the defendants contended that after the conclusion of pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, altering the foundational assertions regarding ownership and lineage.

At the stage of arguments, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was filed by the plaintiff, proposing to substitute "Dalgovind Mahato" with "Chutu Mahato" as the predecessor-in-title. Additional amendments sought included the insertion of vague references to previous sale deeds alleged to be in contravention of Section 46(1)(b) of the CNT Act without providing specific details, such as dates or parties involved.

The Court found that the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the nature of the case, “the defendants, who are petitioners herein, their rights are highly prejudiced as the evidence has been concluded, the contrary conclusions which were drawn on behalf of defendants in cross-examination from plaintiff and his witnesses the same are being adversely affected if this amendment is allowed.”

The Court found that the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the nature of the case, affecting the rights of the defendants derived from evidence already recorded.

The Court emphasized that the amendment sought to introduce a new case by altering the claim that the property devolved through Dalgovind Mahato to instead claim lineage through Chutu Mahato. The proposed change was not supported by specifics regarding the sale deeds sought to be canceled, rendering the amendment vague and general.

The Court highlighted that the trial court ignored established legal principles governing amendments, stating, “unless and until there are the specific date of those previous sale-deed which are sought to be cancelled, the relief for cancellation of the same whether is time barred or not cannot be ascertained.”

Holding that the impugned order permitting the amendment was perverse and contrary to settled law, the High Court set it aside.

The Court concluded that the proposed amendment would not only change the nature of the plaint but also prejudice the rights of the defendants accrued after the conclusion of evidence. Accordingly, the C.M.P. filed by the petitioners was allowed.

Case Title: Arun Kumar Sanganeria vs Balram Mahato

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 181

Click Here To Read Judgement