0

The Amendment of the Plaint, which sought to challenge decree, was time barred and sue diligences was not demonstrated: Supreme Court

Blog , , , ,

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

Click here to view Judgement

0

When an appealable decree is passed in a suit, no revision should be entered against the order that rejects review on merits: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , ,

 Case title: Rahimal Bathu Vs Ashiyal Beevi

Case no.: SLP (C) No. 8428 OF 2018

Decided on: 26.11.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra

 

Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra stated that “An order rejecting a review application is not appealable but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. Where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed.”

BRIEF FACTS:

In order to establish her ownership of the property and take possession of it, the respondent filed an original lawsuit. Alternatively, it was prayed that her share be declared one-sixth of the property and that the property be divided accordingly if the court found that she was not the only owner. The suit property was owned by the plaintiff’s grandmother, from whom he bought it by sale-deed. The other defendants were her kids, and the appellant, the defendant, was her daughter-in-law. The defendant’s husband took advantage of the situation and obtained a gift deed from the plaintiff’s grandmother.

In the alternative, it was argued that if the gift-deed was accepted, because the defendant’s husband died, the plaintiff’s grandmother would receive one-sixth of the property that would be transferred to the plaintiff under the sale-deed. The plaintiff filed a review application after the Trial Court found the gift deed invalid and the sale deed valid, but it was denied. The High Court then considered and approved the revision under Section 115 of the CPC.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

On this issue, the court emphasised that if the revisional court overturns, modifies, or alters a trial court’s decree, the trial court’s decree will be merged into the one passed by the revisional court. As a result, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decree to file an appeal would be affected. Furthermore, there may be cases where a person is dissatisfied with a trial court finding on any issue, even if the trial court’s decree is in their favour. In that scenario, if a party aggrieved by the decree files an appeal, that person has the right to object to the adverse finding; however, if there is no appeal, such a person loses the right to object to the adverse finding.

After examining the parties’ arguments, the court correctly assessed the situation and clarified that, in cases where an appealable decree has been issued in a lawsuit, no revisions under Section 115 of the CPC against an order that denies a review of the decree on the merits should be considered. If a party’s application for review of an appealable decree has been denied on the merits, that party should file an appeal against the decree. If, in the interim, the appeal is barred by time, the court where the appeal is filed can pardon the time spent assiduously pursuing the review application.

 

“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 a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement