Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Due Diligence is Essential – A Party Cannot Amend Pleadings to Raise a Claim That Could Have Been Made Earlier - Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an amendment to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be permitted if it introduces a new cause of action and fails the due diligence test. The plaintiffs had sought to challenge a partition decree from 1984, alleging fraud, but the court refused to allow the amendment, emphasizing that the defendants had already disclosed all relevant documents in 2017. The court ruled that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the defendants, making it legally impermissible.

"Fraud Allegations Cannot be an Excuse for Delay – A Party Must Exercise Due Diligence"

The case arose from a title dispute over land, in which the plaintiffs had filed O.S. No. 40 of 2017, claiming ownership based on sale deeds from 2006 and 2013. The defendants, however, relied on a partition decree passed in O.S. No. 44 of 1984, asserting that the suit property had already been divided and delivered to them through execution proceedings in 1991. In their 2017 written statement, the defendants produced the entire record of the 1984 decree, including sale deeds, final decree proceedings, and execution records.

During trial, after P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined, the plaintiffs sought an amendment to their plaint, seeking to declare that the 1984 decree was obtained by fraud and was not binding on them. They contended that they only discovered the fraud when documents were marked in another related suit (O.S. No. 14 of 2021).

Rejecting this plea, the High Court observed: "The defendants had disclosed the 1984 decree in their written statement filed on August 16, 2017. The plaintiffs cannot now claim that they only became aware of these documents in 2023. Due diligence is a legal requirement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and this amendment fails that test."

The court ruled that challenging the 1984 decree on fraud grounds was not merely an amendment but an attempt to introduce an entirely new case. It stated:

"An amendment cannot be allowed if it completely changes the nature of the suit. The plaintiffs originally filed a suit for title and injunction. By seeking to invalidate a 1984 decree, they are introducing an entirely new cause of action—one that should have been pursued in an independent suit."

"Allowing such an amendment would prejudice the defendants, who have relied on the decree for over three decades. The law does not permit parties to reopen settled issues by simply amending pleadings."

The court further noted that retrospective challenges to decrees must be made through separate proceedings and within the limitation period.

"Supreme Court Precedents Bar Amendments That Change the Nature of a Suit"

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022), which laid down strict conditions for allowing amendments. Summarizing the principles, the court observed: "The Supreme Court has consistently held that amendments should be allowed only if they do not raise a time-barred claim, do not alter the nature of the suit, and do not prejudice the other party. This amendment fails on all three counts."

Referring to the precedent in Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy (2009) 10 SCC 84, the court reaffirmed: "While the law favors allowing amendments, it does not extend to cases where a party seeks to withdraw an admission, introduce a stale claim, or fundamentally alter the suit."

"Article 227 Cannot Be Used to Overturn a Proper Exercise of Judicial Discretion"

The plaintiffs had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the trial court’s rejection of their amendment. The High Court, however, held that there was no error or illegality warranting interference. It ruled:

"Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not meant to second-guess well-reasoned judicial orders. The trial court rightly rejected the amendment application, and this court finds no reason to interfere."

Dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, the High Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the amendment, stating:

"The law does not permit a party to introduce an entirely new cause of action under the guise of an amendment. The trial court’s decision is legally sound and does not warrant interference."

This ruling reinforces the principle that amendments to pleadings must be sought in good faith, with due diligence, and within legal limitations. Courts will not permit amendments that alter the nature of a suit, introduce a time-barred claim, or cause prejudice to the opposing party.
 

Date of Decision: 29 January 2025