The Amendment of the Plaint, which sought to challenge decree, was time barred and sue diligences was not demonstrated: Supreme Court
In the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others revolves around an appeal in the Supreme Court of India concerning an amendment sought by respondent’s No. 1 and 2 in a partition suit. The primary issue was the permissibility of amending the plaint to include a prayer declaring a compromise decree null and void, particularly considering the timing, nature of the suit, and potential prejudice.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a partition suit for ancestral property, initially making no challenge to an existing compromise decree dated October 14, 2004. Later in the proceedings, they sought an amendment to the plaint, adding a prayer to declare the compromise decree null and void. The Trial Court rejected the amendment, but the High Court allowed it, subject to costs.
Contentions made by Appellant: The appellant argued against the amendment, contending that the suit’s nature had impermissibly changed from partition to a declaration. They emphasized the time-barred nature of the amendment, citing the compromise decree’s passage in 2004. The appellant also raised concerns about potential prejudice and the failure to demonstrate due diligence by the respondents.
Substantial justice will be done to the parties. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Dondapati Narayana Reddy vs. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and Others issue was whether the amendments and Avoidance of Multiplicity of Litigations, this case highlighted that amendments which are generally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations, but the court must consider whether the application is bona fide or mala fide and held that Amendments are allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations and Court needs to consider if the application for amendment is bona fide.
In Pushpa Devi Bhagat vs. Rajinder Singh and Others issues was whether Challenge to Consent Decree, the case clarified that no appeal is maintainable against a consent decree, and the only remedy is to approach the court that recorded the compromise to establish its validity, held that No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree and Consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid unless set aside by the court
The Supreme Court, for the instant case held on February 29, 2024, upheld the appellant’s contentions. The Court highlighted the time-barred nature of the amendment, the lack of due diligence demonstrated by respondents, and the potential prejudice to the appellant if the amendment were allowed. It set aside the High Court’s order, dismissed the amendment application, and awarded costs of ₹1,00,000 to the appellant.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, Justice Rajesh Bindal, held that the amendment sought by respondent’s No. 1 and 2 was not permissible. The Court emphasized that the amendment, which sought to challenge a compromise decree, was time-barred, and due diligence was not demonstrated. Additionally, allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the appellant, as a right had accrued in their favour. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, dismissed the application for amendment, and awarded costs of ₹1,00,000 to the appellant, to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly or severally on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal fall into category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family law lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by: Namratha Sharma
