HANUMANTHARAYAPPA Vs. PILLAPPA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS CRP has been directed against an Order dated 19.8.2003 on IA.1/03 whereby the Court has rejected the Defendants application for amendment of the plaint. Though it may seem strange, the present Petitioner who is the Defendant made an application to the trial Court that the plaint should be amended by adding schedule 'D' to the list of properties. What is even more humerous is the fact that the Plaintiff is the brother of the Defendant and he had asked for 1/3rd share in the joint family properties. The list of properties to be partitioned has been set out in schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' and the present Petitioner before me who is the Defendant has applied to the Court that a house which has not been included in the schedules be added as schedule 'D' and that this property also should be partitioned. It is a little difficult for me to understand as to why the litigation has gone on for 16 years if the present Petitioner is not only agreeable to the partition but more importantly, wants even one more property to be included in the properties to be partitioned.

(2.) REGARDLESS of that position, the trial Court has pointed out that this application was not made prior to the commencement of the trial when the pleadings were in their early stages. The suit is 16 years old, the evidence of the Plaintiff has been completed, cross -examination has been completed and the Court is now at the fag end of the trial with only the Defendants further evidence left. At this very late stage of the proceedings, the Defendant has made an application for amendment and that too, of the plaint filed by the other side. What aggravates the position is that the learned trial Judge has also pointed out that this contention has been taken up in the written statement and that therefore, there can be no question or necessity of even applying for any amendment and it is on this ground that the application itself has been characterised as frivolous and costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/ - have been awarded.

(3.) I have considered the ratio laid down in these cases and what needs to be pointed out first of all is that the present case is distinguishable on facts. Secondly, while it is true that the basic proposition entitles the Court to permit an amendment at any stage and that there had been instances where an amendment has been allowed even at an appellate stage, those situations are exceptional and special where the overwhelming interest of justice permitted it. The position of the law as it is today envisages, particularly after the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, that there has got to be a total finality to each stage of a proceeding and that the Court will not permit any disruption of the normal sequence of a case and the sequeter therefore is that if an amendment application is made at a belated stage particularly after the evidence has been recorded or, as in most cases if the object of the amendment is to sabotage the proceedings and ensure that they do not conclude, the Courts will have to come down heavily and not only discourage such practices but ensure that they do not succeed.