Amendment After Trial Begins: Survey Number Correction and a Time-Barred Possession Relief
Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Pune, for a declaration that she is the owner of land bearing Gat No. 214 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession. The defendant's written statement asserted that the plaintiff had already sold the land under an unregistered agreement and was never in possession. Issues were framed. The plaintiff's examination-in-chief was recorded and cross-examination was partly over when the defendant produced a sale deed dated 12 January 2018 showing a different survey number. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to (i) correct Gat No. 214 to Gat No. 214/2, and (ii) add a relief for recovery of possession. The application was filed four years after the issues were framed; a fresh suit for possession would now be barred by limitation. The defendant opposes the application, alleging delay and a change in the nature of the suit. The court has reserved orders on the application and on the plaintiff's request for adjournment of cross-examination pending the amendment.
1. Should the amendment correcting the survey number be allowed? Give reasons.
Read the worked answer
The correction should ordinarily be allowed. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is liberally construed so that the real question in controversy is decided and multiplicity of suits is avoided. Correcting Gat No. 214 to Gat No. 214/2 is clarificatory; it does not introduce a new cause of action or prejudice the defendant, who can meet it by an additional written statement. The proviso bars amendment after trial has commenced unless the party satisfies the court that, despite due diligence, it could not have raised the matter earlier. Here the need arose from a document produced by the defendant during cross-examination, which supports due diligence.
The court should not, however, accept the plaintiff's request to adjourn cross-examination indefinitely. It may allow the amendment subject to costs and permit recall of the witness if necessary, while ensuring the defendant's right to cross-examine on the amended pleadings. Delay of four years alone is not fatal if the amendment is clarificatory and no trial prejudice is shown.
2. Should the relief of recovery of possession be allowed to be added when it is now time-barred?
Read the worked answer
Different considerations apply to the possession relief. A relief for recovery of possession is a distinct cause of action from declaration and injunction. If a fresh suit for possession on the date of the application would be time-barred, the amendment should not be allowed, because it would enable the plaintiff to defeat limitation and prejudice the defendant's vested right. The court cannot equate the possession relief with the original relief merely because both concern the same land.
Unless the plaintiff shows that the possession claim arises from the same cause of action and was omitted due to a bona fide mistake, or that the defendant's own conduct concealed the basis, the amendment should be refused. The refusal does not decide the plaintiff's title; it only prevents the introduction of a stale claim. The plaintiff may file a separate suit if advised, subject to limitation and maintainability.
3. What procedural directions should the court pass while disposing of the application?
Read the worked answer
The court should allow the survey-number correction with costs and refuse the possession relief. The defendant may file an additional written statement confined to the corrected description within two weeks. The plaintiff should be permitted to recall the witness only if the correction affects the evidence already recorded; otherwise cross-examination should continue.
Costs should be quantified and made payable before the next hearing. The court should record that the refusal of the possession relief is without prejudice to a separate suit and does not operate as res judicata on title. The application should be disposed of by a reasoned order so that the appellate court can see the basis for allowing one part and refusing the other.