2019 INSC 0143
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2019
(@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19188 of 2010)
M. REVANNA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
  Leave granted.
2. The   order   dated   09.04.2010   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.
2266 of 2009 (GM­CPC) by the High Court of Karnataka is called
in question in this appeal.
3. The   appellant   herein   was   Plaintiff   No.   1   in   the   suit   being
O.S   No.   2611/1993   filed   seeking   partition   and   separate
possession   of   joint   family   properties.     Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   5,
including   the   appellant   herein,   filed   the   said   suit   seeking
partition and separate possession of joint family properties to the
extent   of   1/6 th
  share   to   Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   3,   1/6 th
  share   to
1

Plaintiff   No.   4   and   1/6 th
  share   to   Plaintiff   No.   5.     Initially,   only
three   defendants   were   made   parties   to   the   suit.   Immediately
upon   the   appearance   of   Defendant   Nos.   1   to   3,   a   compromise
petition was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and Defendant
Nos.   1   to   3,   contending   that   the   plaintiffs   and   defendants   had
divided   the   joint   family   and   ancestral   properties   as   per   the
memorandum of partition dated 18.05.1972 under the Panchayat
Parikath.   The   compromise   petition   came   to   be   filed   in   the   Trial
Court on 22.04.1993. The Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, who also belong
to the same family as the persons mentioned above, having come
to know about the filing of the compromise petition in the suit for
partition,   and   also   having   come   to   know   that   they   were   not
parties   to   the   suit,   filed   an   application   for   impleadment   and
opposed the compromise petition, contending specifically that the
joint family properties had not been divided at any  point of time
and   that   the   family,   as   well   as   its   properties,   continued   to   be
joint.   However,   the   Trial   Court   vide   order   dated   04.06.1994
dismissed   the   suit   as   having   been   compromised.   The   said   order
of the Trial Court was questioned by Defendant No. 6 before the
High   Court   by   filing   RFA   No.   297/1994   and   after   hearing,   the
High  Court set  aside  the order  dated 04.06.1994.  Consequently,
2

the suit being O.S. No. 2611/1993 was restored on the file of the
Trial Court. The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of
the   suit   on   merits.     After   remand,   the   original   Defendant   No.   6
was   transposed   as   Plaintiff   No.   6   in   the   suit.   The   present
Respondent   No.   1   is   the   transposed   Plaintiff   No.   6   in   the   suit.
(Respondent   No.   1   expired   during   the   pendency   of   the   appeal
herein and her legal heirs have been brought on record).
4. After   remand,   Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   5   did   not   adduce   any
evidence   initially.   However,   Plaintiff   No.   6/Respondent   No.   1
herein   adduced   evidence   on   02.07.2003   and   was   thoroughly
cross­examined   by   Plaintiff   Nos.1   to   5.     Though   Plaintiff   No.   1
tried to give evidence as PW­2, he did not make himself available
for  cross­examination from  2003  to  2007. Consequently,  he was
discharged   by   the   Trial   Court.   However,   after   prolonged
adjournments,   PW­2   made   himself   available   and   was
cross­examined   on   12.02.2008.   Thereafter,   on   01.09.2008,
Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 made an application being I.A. No. 22 under
Order   VI   Rule   17   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   (for   short,   “the
CPC”) for amendment of the plaint, pleading that a prior partition
had   taken   place   as   per   the   memorandum   of   partition   dated
18.05.1972,   as   mentioned   supra.   The   Respondent   No.   1   herein
3

and   the   other   two   contesting   defendants,   i.e.   Defendant   Nos.   4
and   5   objected   to   the   amendment   application,   contending   inter
alia   that the application for  amendment of the plaint is not only
highly belated but also not bona fide, and that at no point of time
was   there   any   partition   among   the   family   members.   The   Trial
Court,   however,   proceeded   to   allow   the   application   for
amendment by the order dated 14.11.2008, which came to be set
aside   by   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned   order   dated
09.04.2010.  Hence, this appeal by the unsuccessful Plaintiff No.
1.   It   is   relevant   to   note   that   Plaintiff   Nos.   2   to   5   acting   through
Plaintiff   No.   1  have   accepted   the   order   rejecting   the   amendment
application. 
5.     Leave   to   amend   may   be   refused   if   it   introduces   a   totally
different,   new   and   inconsistent   case,   or   challenges   the
fundamental character of the suit.   The proviso to Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of
pleadings   from   being   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   the   trial.   The   proviso,   to   an   extent,   curtails
absolute   discretion   to   allow   amendment   at   any   stage.  Therefore,
4

the   burden   is   on   the   person   who   seeks   an   amendment   after
commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence,
such   an   amendment   could   not   have   been   sought   earlier.   There
cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as
a matter of right, and under all circumstances.  Though normally
amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of
litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the
application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether
the   amendment   causes   such   prejudice   to   the   other   side   which
cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.
6. As mentioned supra, the suit was filed in the year 1993 and
at   that   point   of   time,   Defendant   Nos.   4   to   6   were   not   made
parties to the suit. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and Defendants Nos. 1 to
3  were   the   only   parties.   They   had   filed  a  joint   memorandum   for
the dismissal of the suit on 22.04.1993, which was within one or
two   months   of   the   filing   of   the   suit.   The   compromise   petition
came   to   be   rightly   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   in   RFA   No.
297/1994.   In   the   compromise   petition,   curiously,   it   was   noted
that the joint family properties were divided by metes and bounds
in   the   year   1972.     If   the   partition   had   really   taken   place   in   the
year   1972   and   was   acted   upon   as   per   the   Panchayat   Parikath,
5

then Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 would not have filed a suit for partition
and separate possession in the year 1993.  Be that as it may, it is
clear   from   records   that   the   suit   was   being   prolonged   on   one
pretext or the other by the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and ultimately, the
application   for   amendment   of   the   plaint   came   to   be   filed   on
01.09.2008.   By   that   time,   the   evidence   of   both   the   parties   had
been   recorded  and   the   matter  was   listed  for   final   hearing   before
the Trial Court. If there indeed was a partition of the joint family
properties   earlier,   nothing   prevented   Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   5   from
making   the   necessary   application   for   the   amendment   of   the
plaint   earlier.   So   also,   nothing   prevented   them   from   making   the
necessary averment in the plaint itself, inasmuch as the suit was
filed   in   the   year   1993.   Even   according   to   Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   5,
they came to know about the compromise in the year 1993 itself.
Thus, there is no explanation by them as to why they did not file
the  application   for  amendment  till  the  year  2008,  given  that   the
suit had been filed in 1993.   Though, even when Plaintiff Nos. 1
to   5   came   to   know   about   the   partition   deed   dated   18.05.1972
(Panchayat   Parikath)   on   22.04.1993,   they   kept   quiet   without
filing   an   application   for   amendment   of   the   plaint   within   a
reasonable   time.     On   the   contrary,   they   proceeded   to   cross
6

examine PW­1 thoroughly and took more than five years’ time to
get the examination of PW­2 completed, and only  thereafter filed
an   application   seeking   amendment   of   the   plaint   on   01.09.2008,
that   too   when   the   suit   was   posted   for   final   arguments.   As
mentioned   supra,   the   suit   itself   is   for   partition   and   separate
possession.   Now,   by   virtue   of   the   application   for   amendment   of
pleadings,   Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   5   want   to   plead   that   the   partition
had   already   taken   place   in   the   year   1972   and   they   are   not
interested   to   pursue   the   suit.     Per   contra,   Plaintiff   No.
6/Respondent No.1 herein  wants  to  continue the  proceedings in
the   suit   for   partition   on   the   ground   that   the   partition   had   not
taken place at all. 
7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the application
for   amendment   of   the   plaint   is   not   only   belated   but   also   not
bona fide, and if allowed, would change the nature and character
of   the   suit.       If   the   application   for   amendment   is   allowed,   the
same would lead to a travesty of justice, inasmuch as the Court
would   be   allowing   Plaintiff   Nos.   1   to   5   to   withdraw   their
admission   made   in   the   plaint   that   the   partition   had   not   taken
place   earlier.   Hence,   to   grant   permission   for   amendment   of   the
7

plaint at this stage would cause serious prejudice to Plaintiff No.
6/Respondent No. 1 herein.
8. Accordingly, the order of the High Court quashing the order
of   the   Trial   Court   dated   14.11.2008,   which   had   allowed   the
application   for   amendment   of   the   plaint,   is   hereby   confirmed.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
          …..
……………………………..J.
[ N.V. Ramana]
        …..……………………………..J.
    [Mohan M. Shantanagoudar]   
New Delhi;
February 14, 2019.
8