Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors.
Date: 24th September 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Acts and Sections:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), specifically Order VI Rule 17, Order XI Rule 14, Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3
Cited Judgements:
Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 409
North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (2008) 8 SCC 511
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363]
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 337
Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602
B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parmeswaran Pillai & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 712
Introduction
In the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was tasked with determining the propriety of an amendment to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This case involves a family dispute over the partition of ancestral property and the validity of a Will executed by the appellant's mother, Smt. Katoribai, which allegedly bequeathed the entire property to the appellant. The respondents, who are the appellant’s siblings, contested the Will, seeking their share in the property.
The pivotal question before the Court was whether the High Court had erred in allowing the respondents to amend their plaint, which included challenging the genuineness of the Will and adding new claims relating to movable property. The judgment delivered on 24th September 2024 by Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar sheds light on the principles governing amendments to pleadings, the importance of determining the authenticity of the Will, and the balance between procedural fairness and the need for substantive justice.
Background
The dispute revolves around a property located in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, which was purchased by Smt. Katoribai in 1987 through a registered sale deed. After her demise in 2013, a Will surfaced, purportedly bequeathing the property to Dinesh Goyal, the appellant. The respondents, his siblings, contested this Will and sought a 1/5th share of the property, arguing that it was their father’s ancestral property.
A suit was filed by Suman Agarwal (Bindal) seeking partition of the property, and during the pendency of the suit, the respondent sought to amend her pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. She argued that the Will was forged and that the appellant had made fraudulent changes to the documents. Additionally, the respondent sought to include movable properties as part of the partition.
Initially, the Trial Court rejected the application for amendment, observing that it was filed after the commencement of the trial and that the respondent had not exercised due diligence in raising these issues earlier. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the amendment was necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The High Court also noted that the trial had not progressed to a stage where the appellant would suffer prejudice due to the amendment.
Legal Principles Involved
Order VI Rule 17 CPC: The provision grants the Court the discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, provided they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. However, post-trial commencement, the party seeking the amendment must demonstrate due diligence in raising the matter before trial.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in several rulings, has emphasised that a liberal approach should be adopted while allowing amendments unless the amendment causes prejudice to the other party or introduces a new cause of action. In the present case, the High Court allowed the amendment, relying on these principles to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure proper adjudication of the controversy.
Determination of the Genuineness of the Will: The primary issue in this case is the genuineness of the Will executed by Smt. Katoribai. The High Court observed that no issue regarding the authenticity of the Will had been framed by the Trial Court, which hindered the proper adjudication of the case. The court remarked that without deciding the genuineness of the Will, it would be impossible to move forward with the partition of the property. For the reasons best known to the trial court, no issue in regard to the genuineness of the Will has been framed.
Hyper-Technical Approach: The High Court criticised the Trial Court for adopting a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the amendment application, especially since the trial had not progressed to a stage where such an amendment would cause prejudice. The High Court held that amendments should generally be allowed unless they cause irreparable harm to the other party, which was not the case here.
Delay in Filing the Amendment: While the appellant argued that the amendment was unduly delayed, the High Court held that delay alone cannot be a ground to reject an amendment if the amendment is necessary for the just resolution of the case. The Supreme Court has held in various cases, including Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., that delay in itself is not sufficient to deny an amendment if it is required for determining the real issues.
Supreme Court's Observations
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in upholding the High Court’s order, reiterated the well-settled principle that amendments should be allowed to facilitate the real questions in controversy. It emphasised that denying the amendment in the present case would lead to an incomplete adjudication of the matter, as the validity of the Will was central to the dispute.
The Court further highlighted that rejecting the amendment would result in multiple legal proceedings, which should be avoided. The decision of the High Court was, therefore, in consonance with the objective of Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. underscores the need for a balanced approach in handling amendments to pleadings. While the courts must guard against undue delays, they must also ensure that technicalities do not obstruct the course of justice.
In this case, the amendment was critical for determining the genuineness of the Will, which was the central issue in the dispute. The liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court in allowing the amendment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that cases are decided on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities.
Comments