The Supreme Court has allowed an amendment to a plaint in a long-running property dispute, holding that additional facts and reliefs can be introduced when they have a direct connection with the controversy already before the court. The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside orders refusing the amendment, while leaving questions concerning limitation and the validity of a compromise decree open for the trial court.
Background
In Haramani Sahoo and Others v. Lalita Nayak and Others, the original plaintiff, Rabindranath Sahoo, had filed a civil suit in 2009 seeking a declaration of title, recovery of possession and rectification of registered sale deeds concerning land in Cuttack, Odisha.
During the proceedings, he sought to amend the plaint after claiming that he had discovered a compromise decree passed in another suit, T.S. No. 105 of 1998. According to his case, the decree affected a portion of the disputed property, although he was not a party to those proceedings. He sought to introduce the relevant facts and challenge the final decree.
The trial court rejected the amendment application on September 21, 2022. The Orissa High Court declined to interfere on April 10, 2023. His legal heirs subsequently challenged these orders before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the proposed amendment fundamentally changed the nature of the original suit and whether the plaintiff had explained why the matter could not have been raised earlier. It noted that certified copies of the plaint and final decree had been obtained on June 22, 2020, supporting the explanation offered regarding the discovery.
The Court observed:
“The real inquiry is whether the amendment introduces a distinct and independent controversy having no connection with the original cause of action, or whether it merely brings on record additional facts and consequential reliefs having a direct nexus with the existing controversy.”
It found that the proposed amendment concerned the same property and had a direct bearing on the claims of title and possession. The Court also held that the explanation regarding the discovery of the compromise decree was sufficient to satisfy the due diligence requirement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Addressing the objections concerning limitation and the maintainability of the challenge, the Bench clarified:
“It is clarified that permitting the amendment does not amount to acceptance of the averments incorporated therein, nor does it confer upon the appellants any declaration or substantive right in respect of the compromise decree.”
The Court further noted that the respondents could address any prejudice by filing additional written statements and, where necessary, through costs. Refusing the amendment could otherwise lead to separate proceedings concerning the same property.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the Orissa High Court and allowed the amendment subject to payment of ₹25,000 in costs to the contesting respondents within two weeks. The appellants were directed to make the consequential amendments within four weeks thereafter.
The respondents were permitted to file additional written statements within the period fixed by the trial court. Questions concerning limitation, maintainability, the compromise decree's validity, title, possession and the merits of the claims were left open for determination in accordance with law.
The civil appeal was allowed in these terms.
