Amendment Of Pleadings Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC Is Applicable To Objector Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is applicable to the application filed by objector under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition preferred by an objector seeking to quash the order of the Civil Judge in an execution petition.
A Single Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held, “A plain reading of Rule 3(2) of aforesaid Rules is sufficient to come to the conclusion that pleadings encompass an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and consequently Order VI Rule 17 CPC would be applicable to the instant application. … I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application on the ground it was not maintainable deserves to be set aside.”
Advocate Sunil S. Rao appeared for the petitioner while Advocate K. Vijaya Kumar appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The application filed by the petitioner/objector under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the objector application by incorporating paragraphs of the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court. A suit was instituted against the defendants for declaration, possession, permanent injunction, and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The court passed the judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and aggrieved by this, the defendants preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed.
Thereafter, the defendants filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the High Court. The plaintiff instituted the instant execution proceedings to enforce and implement the judgments. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 97, 98, and 101 of CPC claiming to be the objector in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The decree holder filed objections and the petitioner filed one more application seeking amendment of the objector application. The Trial Court rejected the same and hence, the matter was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above context noted, “Insofar as proposed amendment is concerned, though the respondent would dispute the various contentions urged therein, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. V. K.K.MODI & ORS. reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1647 wherein it is held that the merits/demerits of the proposed amendment cannot be gone into while considering an application for amendment, I am of the considered opinion that since the respondents would have an opportunity to file additional statement of objections to the amended application, no prejudice can be said to have caused to the respondents/decree holder if the amendment was allowed.”
The Court said that the litigation between the parties commenced in the year 2013 and the plaintiff obtained the judgment and decree before the court as long back as in the year 2021 and hence, it is a fit case to issue necessary directions for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Executing Court to conclude the execution proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Cause Title- Sarvamangala v. HG Renukappa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:11626)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sunil S. Rao and T. Seshagiri Rao.
Respondents: Advocate K. Vijaya Kumar
