Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Basavaraj v. Indira and Others

Date of Order / Judgment: 29th February, 2024.

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal


In the present case, the Respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the ancestral property belonging to their grandfather pleading that no actual partition of the property took place. When the suit was at the final stage, an application was filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 seeking amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought was to add prayer in the suit for a declaration that an earlier compromise decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC was null and void. The ground on which the amendment was filed was due to oversight and mistake. The Trial Court dismissed the application. However, when the order was challenged before the High Court, the same was set aside and the amendment prayed by the plaintiffs was allowed. The Defendants-Appellant against the decision of the High Court filed the civil appeal before the Supreme Court.


Whether the plaintiff could seek an amendment to the suit whereby the nature of the suit can be changed i.e. from the partition suit to the declaration suit i.e., declaring the compromise decree as void?


The Court observed that “Initially, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. By way of amendment, relief of declaration of the compromise decree being null and void was also sought. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible.”

The Court also observed that “In the case in hand, this is not even the pleaded case of respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of the Respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs.”


The Supreme Court held that an application seeking amendment of plaint should not be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC if the amendment alters the nature of the suit. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the application filed for amendment of Plaint.