Basavaraj vs. Indira [February 29, 2024]
This Supreme Court case arose from a long-standing dispute over ancestral property. The original suit, filed in 2005 by Indira and others, sought partition and separate possession. During the suit's final stages in 2010, the plaintiffs applied to amend their plaint to seek a declaration that a compromise decree from 2004 (entered in Lok Adalat proceedings) was null and void, citing “oversight and mistake” as reasons for not seeking this relief earlier. The trial court rejected the amendment application, but the Karnataka High Court allowed it. Basavaraj, the appellant, challenged this before the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether an amendment to the plaint that fundamentally alters the nature of the suit can be allowed at the late stage of proceedings.
Whether the application for amendment was time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) regarding amendments after the commencement of trial.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that amendments which introduce a wholly new, inconsistent case or fundamentally change the nature of the suit are generally impermissible, especially after the trial has commenced.
The Court emphasized that Order VI Rule 17 CPC restricts amendments after the commencement of trial unless the party demonstrates that, despite due diligence, the issue could not have been raised earlier. Here, the plaintiffs failed to show such due diligence; their only explanation was “oversight and mistake,” which the Court found insufficient.
The Court also noted that the amendment sought to challenge a compromise decree involving parties not before the court, and that such a challenge would not be maintainable in the absence of all affected parties.
Importantly, the Court held that the amendment was time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the relief sought (declaration that the compromise decree was void) was not pursued within the prescribed limitation period.
The Court relied on precedents, including Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, affirming that a compromise decree can only be challenged on limited grounds and within the framework of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order permitting the amendment, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the amendment application.
The Court awarded costs to the appellant, emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of the legal process and prevent prejudice to the opposing party.
The judgment clarifies that amendments at the fag end of proceedings, especially those that are time-barred and fundamentally alter the suit, cannot be permitted.
Significance
This decision reinforces the principle that amendments to pleadings must not be allowed to defeat the rights of the other party or undermine the finality of earlier proceedings, especially when limitation and procedural diligence are not satisfied.
It upholds the sanctity of compromise decrees and the importance of timely, diligent legal action.
Citation:
Basavaraj v. Indira and Others, Civil Appeal No. 2886 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 29 February 2024 [2024] 2 S.C.R. 935.
RELATED Blog
0 comments