®

SCC
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Saturday, February 01, 2025

iej@■■■@■#
Printed For: Sudipto Mohite
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
JI.. Sl<nSf WW/ to !Lgal ,-,,di/"
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 332 : (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 338 :
2019 SCC OnLine SC 194

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE N .V. RAMANA AND M.M. SHANTANAG0UDAR, JJ.)

M. REVANNA .. Appellant;
Versus
ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1669 of 20191, decided on February 14, 2019
C ivil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. 6 R. 17 proviso - Amendment of pleadings after
commencement of trial - Not permissible except under conditions stated in proviso - Burden
on person seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show "due diligence" on his part
as contemplated under proviso - Bona tides of prayer for amendment as also prejudice to the
other side should be taken into consideration - Neither can amendment be claimed as a matter
of right nor has court absolute discretion to allow amendment in view of proviso - Belated
application for amendment, which if allowed, would result in travesty of justice liable to be
rejected
Plaintiffs 1 to 5 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. Initially only
Defendants 1 to 3 were made parties and immediately upon their appearance, a compromise petition was
filed on behalf of the said plaintiffs and the defendants contending that the parties had divided the joint
family properties by metes and bounds as per the memorandum of partition dated 18-5-1972 under the
Panchayat Parikath. Defendants 4 to 6 who also belong to the same family, having come to know about
filing of the compromise petition in the suit, filed on application for impleadment and opposed the
compromise petition contending specifically that joint family properties had never been divided. However,
the trial court dismissed the suit having been compromised. The order of the trial court was questioned by
Defendant 6 before the High Court which remanded the matter to the trial court for disposal on merits.
After remand, the original Defendant 6 was transposed as Plaintiff 6 in the suit, who in the present appeal
is Respondent 1. The suit was being prolonged on one pretext or the other by Plaintiffs 1 to 5. At last on
1-9-2000 those plaintiffs made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint,
pleading that a prior partition had taken place as per the memorandum of partition dated 18-5-1972.
Respondent 1 and Defendants 4 and 5 objected to the amendment application, contending inter alia that
the application for amendment of the plaint was not only highly belated but also not bona fide, and that at
no point of time was there any partition among the family members. The trial court, however allowed the
application but the High Court dismissed the order passed by the trial court. Hence this appeal by the
unsuccessful Plaintiff 1.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court

Page: 333

Held:
Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or
challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an
application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the
court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow
amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after
commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have
been sought earlier. An amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances.
Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court
needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and
whether the amendment causes such oreiudice to the other side which cannot be compensated
 ®
SCC
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, February 01, 2025

iej@■■■@■#
Printed For: Sudipto Mohite
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
JI.. Sl<nSf WW/ to !Lgal ,-,,di/"
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adequately in terms of money.
(Para 7)
In this case there is no explanation by Plaintiffs 1 to 5 as to why they did not file the application for
amendment till the year 2008, given that the suit had been filed in 1993. They kept quiet without filing an
application for amendment of the plaint within a reasonable time. By the time the application was filed the
evidence of both the parties had been recorded and the matter was listed for final hearing before the trial
court. The suit itself is for partition and separate possession. Now, by virtue of the application for
amendment of pleadings, Plaintiffs 1 to 5 want to plead that the partition had already taken place in the
year 1972 and they are not interested to pursue the suit. Per contra, Plaintiff 6 Respondent 1 herein
wants to continue the proceedings in the suit for partition on the ground that the partition had not taken
place at alI.
(Para 8)
In the circumstances, the application for amendment of the plaint is not only belated but also not bona
fide, and if allowed, would change the nature and character of the suit. If the application for amendment is
allowed, the same would lead to a travesty of justice, inasmuch as the Court would be allowing Plaintiffs 1
to 5 to withdraw their admission made in the plaint that the partition had not taken place earlier. Hence,
to grant permission for amendment of the plaint at this stage would cause serious prejudice to Plaintiff 6
Respondent 1 herein.
(Para 9)
Anjanamma v. M. Revanna, 2010 sec Online Kar 5507, affirmed
R-D/61871/CV
Advocates who appeared in this case
Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate (R.S. Hegde, Ms Farhat Jahan Rehman, R.
Chandrashekhar and Rajeev Singh, Advocates) for the Appellant;
Rajesh Mahale, Shivendra Dwivedi, Akshay Sharma, Abdul Rahiman, G.V.
Chandrashekhar, N.K. Verma, Ms Anjana Chandrashekhar and V.N. Raghupathy,
Advocates, for the Respondents.

Chronological list of cases cited on page(s)

1. 2010 SCC Online Kar 5507, Anjanamma v. M. Revanna 334a, 33!

Page: 334

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M.M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.- Leave granted. The order dated 9-4-2010 passed in
Anjanamma v. M. Revanna1 by the High Court of Karnataka is called in question in this
appeal.
2. The appellant herein was Plaintiff 1 in the suit being OS No. 2611 of 1993 filed
seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties. Plaintiffs 1 to 5,
including the appellant herein, filed the said suit seeking partition and separate possession
of joint family properties to the extent of 1/6th share to Plaintiffs 1 to 3, 1/6th share to
Plaintiff 4 and 1/6th share to Plaintiff 5. Initially, only three defendants were made parties
to the suit. Immediately upon the appearance of Defendants 1 to 3, a compromise petition
was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and Defendants 1 to 3, contending that the plaintiffs
and defendants had divided the joint family and ancestral properties as per the
memorandum of partition dated 18-5-1972 under the Panchayat Parikath. The
compromise petition came to be filed in the trial court on 22-4-1993.
3. Defendants 4 to 6, who also belong to the same family as the persons mentioned
above, having come to know about the filing of the compromise petition in the suit for
 ®
SCC
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, February 01, 2025

iej@■■■@■#
Printed For: Sudipto Mohite
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
JI.. Sl<nSf WW/ to !Lgal ,-,,di/"
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
partition, and also having come to know that they were not parties to the suit, filed an
application for impleadment and opposed the compromise petition, contending specifically
that the joint family properties had not been divided at any point of time and that the
family, as well as its properties, continued to be joint. However, the trial court vide order
dated 4-6-1994 dismissed the suit as having been compromised. The said order of the
trial court was questioned by Defendant 6 before the High Court by filing RFA No. 297 of
1994 and after hearing, the High Court set aside the order dated 4-6-1994.
4. Consequently, the suit being OS No. 2611 of 1993 was restored on the file of the
trial court. The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits. After
remand, the original Defendant 6 was transposed as Plaintiff 6 in the suit. The present
Respondent 1 is the transposed Plaintiff 6 in the suit. (Respondent 1 expired during the
pendency of the appeal herein and her legal heirs have been brought on record.)
5. After remand, Plaintiffs 1 to 5 did not adduce any evidence initially. However,
Plaintiff 6 Respondent 1 herein adduced evidence on 2-7-2003 and was thoroughly cross­
examined by Plaintiffs 1 to 5. Though Plaintiff 1 tried to give evidence as PW 2, he did not
make himself available for cross-examination from 2003 to 2007. Consequently, he was
discharged by the trial court. However, after prolonged adjournments, PW 2 made himself
available and was cross-examined on 12-2-2008.
6. Thereafter, on 1-9-2008, Plaintiffs 1 to 5 made an application being IA No. 22 under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short

Page: 335

"CPC") for amendment of the plaint, pleading that a prior partition had taken place as per
the memorandum of partition dated 18-5-1972, as mentioned supra. Respondent 1 herein
and the other two contesting defendants i.e. Defendants 4 and 5 objected to the
amendment application, contending inter alia that the application for amendment of the
plaint is not only highly belated but also not bona fide, and that at no point of time was
there any partition among the family members. The trial court, however, proceeded to
allow the application for amendment by the order dated 14-11-2008, which came to be
set aside by the High Court by the impugned order dated 9-4-2010 1.. Hence, this appeal
by the unsuccessful Plaintiff 1. It is relevant to note that Plaintiffs 2 to 5 acting through
Plaintiff 1 have accepted the order rejecting the amendment application.

7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and

inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from
being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion
that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow
amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an
amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such
an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an
amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though
normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the
court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide
or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which
cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.
8. As mentioned supra, the suit was filed in the year 1993 and at that point of time,
Defendants 4 to 6 were not made parties to the suit. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and Defendants 1 to
3 were the only parties. They had filed a joint memorandum for the dismissal of the suit
on 22-4-1993, which was within one or two months of the filing of the suit. The
compromise petition came to be rightly dismissed by the High Court in RFA No. 297 of
 ®
SCC
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Saturday, February 01, 2025

iej@■■■@■#
Printed For: Sudipto Mohite
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law
JI.. Sl<nSf WW/ to !Lgal ,-,,di/"
declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 &
63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994. In the compromise petition, curiously, it was noted that the joint family properties
were divided by metes and bounds in the year 1972. If the partition had really taken place
in the year 1972 and was acted upon as per the Panchayat Parikath, then Plaintiffs 1 to 5
would not have filed a suit for partition and separate possession in the year 1993. Be that
as it may, it is clear from records that the suit was being prolonged on one pretext or the
other by Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and ultimately, the application for amendment of the plaint came
to be filed on 1-9-2008. By that time, the evidence of both the parties had been recorded
and the matter was listed for final hearing before the trial court. If there indeed was a
partition of the

Page: 336

joint family properties earlier, nothing prevented Plaintiffs 1 to 5 from making the
necessary application for the amendment of the plaint earlier. So also, nothing prevented
them from making the necessary averment in the plaint itself, inasmuch as the suit was
filed in the year 1993. Even according to Plaintiffs 1 to 5, they came to know about the
compromise in the year 1993 itself. Thus, there is no explanation by them as to why they
did not file the application for amendment till the year 2008, given that the suit had been
filed in 1993. Though, even when Plaintiffs 1 to 5 came to know about the partition deed
dated 18-5-1972 (Panchayat Parikath) on 22-4-1993, they kept quiet without filing an
application for amendment of the plaint within a reasonable time. On the contrary, they
proceeded to cross-examine PW 1 thoroughly and took more than five years' time to get
the examination of PW 2 completed, and only thereafter filed an application seeking
amendment of the plaint on 1-9-2008, that too when the suit was posted for final
arguments. As mentioned supra, the suit itself is for partition and separate possession.
Now, by virtue of the application for amendment of pleadings, Plaintiffs 1 to 5 want to
plead that the partition had already taken place in the year 1972 and they are not
interested to pursue the suit. Per contra, Plaintiff 6 Respondent 1 herein wants to continue
the proceedings in the suit for partition on the ground that the partition had not taken
place at all.

9. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that the application for amendment of the plaint is not only belated but
also not bona fide, and if allowed, would change the nature and character of the suit. If
the application for amendment is allowed, the same would lead to a travesty of justice,
inasmuch as the Court would be allowing Plaintiffs 1 to 5 to withdraw their admission
made in the plaint that the partition had not taken place earlier. Hence, to grant
permission for amendment of the plaint at this stage would cause serious prejudice to
Plaintiff 6 Respondent 1 herein.
10. Accordingly, the order of the High Court quashing the order of the trial court dated
14-11-2008, which had allowed the application for amendment of the plaint, is hereby
confirmed. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

t Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19188 of 2010. Arising from the Judgment and Order in Anjanamma v. M. Revanna, 2010
sec OnUne Kar 5507 [Kamataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench, Writ Petition No. 2266 of 2009 (GM-CPC), dt. 9-4-
2010]

1 Anjanamma v. M. Revanna, 2010 sec OnLine Kar 5507

Disclaimer: While every effort Is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ Judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notifi cation
Is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher w ould not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for
any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of t his casenote/ headnote/ Judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/
circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of this text
must be verified from the orlglnal source.