The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that applications for amendment of written statement (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC) and for framing of additional issues (Order 14 Rule 5 CPC) can be allowed even at a belated stage if the case is at an initial stage, provided there is no demonstrated perversity or illegality. The judgment upholds current precedent, confirming its binding value within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP227/868/2025 of JIYALAL Vs VIPTA RAM |
| CNR | CGHC010378052025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR |
| Precedent Value | Binding within territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of Trial Court allowing amendment/application for additional issue |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (CPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an amendment in the written statement and framing of additional issues can be allowed at a belated stage under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that as the trial was at an initial stage (fixing plaintiff’s evidence), applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC could be allowed even after considerable delay, so long as the case was not concluded and no prejudice was demonstrated. The Court found that the orders of the Trial Court suffered from no perversity or illegality, and therefore declined to interfere. The delay of 21 years was not, in itself, a sufficient ground for denial at this stage of proceedings. Framing the additional issue of limitation is proper when the pleadings support it. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specified in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Trial Court’s reasoning and case stage |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in 1994; Defendant was initially proceeded ex-parte, then allowed to participate by High Court order. Defendant moved for amendment of written statement in 2025 (after 21 years), alleging bar of limitation and long-standing possession, and sought an additional issue on limitation. Trial Court allowed both applications. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44866; NAFR |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Current jurisprudence permitting amendment and additional issues at early trial stage even if delayed |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that delay alone is not fatal for amendment of written statement or for application to frame additional issues when the trial is at an initial stage.
- Lawyers should note that the mere passage of time is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for refusing amendments or additional issues, provided no irreparable prejudice is shown and case is yet to proceed to evidence.
- Applications invoking limitation as an issue may be entertained at belated stages if the pleadings and record justify it.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the trial court’s decisions allowing: (a) amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, (b) framing of an additional issue concerning limitation under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.
- It was observed that although the application was made after 21 years, the proceedings were still at the initial stage (plaintiff’s evidence not yet led).
- The Court found that there was no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s orders, since the amendments and framing of an additional issue on limitation were justified on the pleadings and stage of trial.
- The challenge to the procedural orders was dismissed, reaffirming that such amendments/additional issues can be permitted even at a late stage if the matter is not concluded.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The application for amendment was moved after 21 years of written statement being filed, constituting a belated stage.
- The trial court committed an error in law by allowing such delayed applications.
- Additional issue on limitation was framed belatedly and should not be permitted.
Respondent (State)
Opposed the petition seeking interference with trial court’s orders.
Factual Background
Plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in 1994. Defendant No. 1 was initially proceeded ex-parte, but that ex-parte order was eventually set aside by the High Court. Written statement was filed in 2004. In 2025, Defendant No. 1 applied for amendment of his written statement to assert long-standing possession and bar of limitation, and sought to frame an additional issue regarding limitation. The trial court allowed both applications when the matter was at the plaintiff’s evidence stage. The plaintiff challenged these orders before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Provides for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, subject to Court’s discretion.
- Order 14 Rule 5 CPC: Allows the Court to frame additional issues at any time before passing a decree.
- The High Court applied these provisions, holding that the stage of trial and absence of conclusive proceedings justified acceptance of the applications despite delay.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms and applies existing principles regarding amendment of pleadings and additional issues under Orders 6 and 14 of CPC.
Citations
2025:CGHC:44866; NAFR