Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8515 (UTT)

Vishal Agarwal v. Rakesh Kumar Varshney

2026-01-06

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ashish Naithani, J. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Civil Revision No. 128 of 2022, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh in Original Suit No. 16 of 2021, rejecting the Petitioner’s amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 2. The dispute relates to a property situated at Nehru Marg, Rishikesh, bearing old Municipal No. 26/2/11A and present Municipal No. 222/26, recorded over Khasra No. 74/9, admeasuring approximately 376.245 square meters. The Petitioner claims title through his mother, late Savitri Devi, who is stated to have acquired the said property by a registered sale deed dated 13.07.1988 and thereafter remained in possession until her death. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that during her lifetime, Savitri Devi executed a Will in his favour, pursuant to which, upon her demise on  02.06.2021, the Petitioner claims to have succeeded to the property and continued in possession thereof. House tax and other municipal dues are stated to have been paid continuously, both during the lifetime of the Petitioner’s mother and thereafter by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner asserts that in the year 2005, a sale deed was executed in favour of one Virendra Aawal, not as an absolute transfer, but as a security arrangement in respect of a loan transaction. According to the Petitioner, the loan amount was subsequently repaid over a period of time, and disputes arising from the said transaction led to the institution of Original Suit No. 25 of 2020 against Virendra Aawal, which is stated to be pending adjudication before the competent civil court. 5. In the year 2021, proceedings were initiated before the Municipal Corporation, Rishikesh, at the instance of the present Respondents, who claimed rights over the same property on the basis of an alleged sale deed of the year 1967 executed in favour of their predecessor in interest, Shanti Devi. The Petitioner disputes the genuineness and validity of the said sale deed and asserts that it pertains to a different property and chain of title. 6. The Petitioner disputes the genuineness and validity of the said sale deed and asserts that it pertains to a different property and chain of title. 6. In the backdrop of the municipal proceedings and rival claims set up by the Respondents, the Petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 16 of 2021 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh, seeking declaratory and consequential reliefs in respect of the aforesaid property. 7. Upon service of summons, the Respondents filed their respective written statements. In their pleadings, the Respondents set up a defence founded inter alia on the transactions involving Virendra Aawal and subsequent purchasers, including alleged transfers in favour of third parties and an entity described as Anandpur Trust, thereby asserting that the property claimed by the Petitioner stood alienated through a distinct chain of title. 8. Before commencement of evidence, the Petitioner moved an application dated 27.07.2022, registered as Application No. 42-A, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the Petitioner sought to clarify the rival chains of title, to explain the distinction between the property claimed by him and the property relied upon by the Respondents, and to implead certain subsequent transferees so as to avoid ambiguity and multiplicity of proceedings. 9. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), by order dated 22.09.2022, rejected the amendment application, primarily holding that the facts sought to be introduced were already in issue in another suit against Virendra Aawal and that the amendment was a mala fide attempt to delay the proceedings. 10. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a civil revision, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, by order dated 13.02.2024, affirming the reasoning of the trial court and holding that no interference was warranted. 11. Challenging the aforesaid concurrent orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court contending that the courts below have misapplied the principles governing amendment of pleadings and have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the courts below have committed a manifest error in applying the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, even though the amendment application was filed before commencement of evidence and at a stage when only issues had been framed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the courts below have committed a manifest error in applying the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, even though the amendment application was filed before commencement of evidence and at a stage when only issues had been framed. 13.1 It was contended that the proposed amendment was purely explanatory in nature and did not introduce a new cause of action, alter the basic structure of the suit, or withdraw any admission made earlier. Learned Counsel argued that the amendment was necessitated by the defence set up by the Respondents in their written statements and was essential for proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. 14. Learned Counsel further submitted that the reliance placed by the courts below on Section 10 CPC was wholly misconceived, as the suit against Virendra Aawal was founded on a distinct cause of action, involved different parties, and pertained to a separate chain of transactions. According to learned Counsel, the pendency of the said suit could not operate as a bar either to the institution of the present suit or to the amendment of pleadings therein. 15. It was also urged that the finding of mala fides recorded by the trial court was unsupported by any material on record and was based on a presumption rather than a reasoned analysis. Learned Counsel submitted that seeking comprehensive adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings could not, by any stretch, be characterised as mala fide. 16. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the amendment application was filed after framing of issues and, therefore, squarely attracted the rigour of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It was contended that the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate due diligence as required under the proviso. 17. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further argued that the Petitioner was seeking, under the guise of amendment, to indirectly reopen issues already raised in the earlier suit against Virendra Aawal and to unnecessarily expand the scope of the present proceedings. According to learned Counsel, permitting such an amendment would cause prejudice to the Respondents and unduly delay the trial. 18. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further argued that the Petitioner was seeking, under the guise of amendment, to indirectly reopen issues already raised in the earlier suit against Virendra Aawal and to unnecessarily expand the scope of the present proceedings. According to learned Counsel, permitting such an amendment would cause prejudice to the Respondents and unduly delay the trial. 18. It was also submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the revisional court were discretionary in nature and did not warrant interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and has perused the pleadings, the amendment application, the objections thereto, and the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 20. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to function as a court of appeal. However, where a subordinate court applies an incorrect legal test, ignores settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction, or declines to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, supervisory correction is not only permissible but warranted. 21. The core issue in the present case is whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the amendment application filed by the Petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and in doing so, whether they applied the correct legal parameters. 22. The record clearly demonstrates that although issues had been framed in the suit, the trial had not commenced, and no evidence had been led at the time when the amendment application was moved. The distinction between “framing of issues” and “commencement of trial” is well recognised. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is attracted only after the trial has commenced, which, in the context of civil proceedings, is understood as the stage when the court begins recording evidence. 23. The courts below have proceeded on the erroneous premise that framing of issues, by itself, attracts the rigour of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This approach reflects a misapplication of the statutory provision and a conflation of two distinct procedural stages. Such an error goes to the root of the exercise of jurisdiction. 24. 23. The courts below have proceeded on the erroneous premise that framing of issues, by itself, attracts the rigour of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This approach reflects a misapplication of the statutory provision and a conflation of two distinct procedural stages. Such an error goes to the root of the exercise of jurisdiction. 24. Equally significant is the nature of the amendment sought. A careful reading of the amendment application reveals that the Petitioner did not seek to introduce a new cause of action, alter the fundamental character of the suit, or withdraw any admission previously made. The proposed amendment was intended to explain and clarify the rival chains of title asserted by the parties, particularly in light of the defence taken by the Respondents in their written statements. 25. It is well settled that an amendment which is explanatory or clarificatory in nature, and which assists the court in effectively adjudicating the real controversy between the parties, ought ordinarily to be permitted, especially when no irretrievable prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The courts below have failed to examine the amendment application from this perspective. 26. The reliance placed by the courts below on Section 10 CPC is also misplaced. The bar of res sub judice operates only where the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially the same as that in the previously instituted suit, between the same parties or parties claiming under them, and where the reliefs are identical. The suit instituted by the Petitioner against Virendra Aawal arises out of a distinct transaction and involves a different set of parties and causes of action. The pendency of that suit could not, therefore, be a valid ground to non-suit the Petitioner or to deny amendment in the present proceedings. 27. The finding recorded by the trial court, and affirmed in revision, that the amendment was mala fide is not borne out from the record. Mere overlap of background facts or reference to related transactions does not constitute mala fides. On the contrary, the amendment appears to have been prompted by the defence set up by the Respondents themselves, who sought to rely upon multiple transactions and alleged transfers to contest the Petitioner’s claim. 28. Mere overlap of background facts or reference to related transactions does not constitute mala fides. On the contrary, the amendment appears to have been prompted by the defence set up by the Respondents themselves, who sought to rely upon multiple transactions and alleged transfers to contest the Petitioner’s claim. 28. The courts below have also overlooked the principle that procedural law is a handmaid of justice and that rules of procedure are meant to advance, not obstruct, the cause of substantive adjudication. The refusal to permit amendment in the present case is likely to result in multiplicity of proceedings and fragmented adjudication, an outcome which the procedural law seeks to avoid. 29. The revisional court, while affirming the order of the trial court, has failed to independently examine whether the discretion exercised by the trial court was in consonance with settled legal principles. The revisional jurisdiction was thus exercised in a mechanical manner, without addressing the jurisdictional infirmities apparent on the face of the record. 30. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned orders suffer from a manifest error of law and a failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the parameters governing amendment of pleadings. The present case falls within the narrow but well-defined contours where supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is justified. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed The order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh, in Original Suit No. 16 of 2021, as well as the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in Civil Revision No. 128 of 2022, are set aside.