ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Muslim Matrimoni..Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Muslim Matrimonial Jurisdiction

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Muslim Matrimoni...: Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Muslim Matrimonial Jurisdiction Repeal Doctrine, Plenary Civil Authority, and Conditional Ouster under th...

Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Muslim Matrimonial Jurisdiction

Repeal Doctrine, Plenary Civil Authority, and Conditional Ouster under the Family Courts Act

---

I. Civil Court Jurisdiction: The Starting Principle

The inquiry begins with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which confers jurisdiction upon civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature except those expressly or impliedly barred.

Matrimonial status disputes are civil in character. Therefore, exclusion must be demonstrated through clear statutory language.

The Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308, while interpreting Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, held that once a Family Court is established for a territorial area, civil courts stand excluded in respect of matrimonial status disputes. However, the Court proceeded on the admitted premise that a Family Court existed with territorial competence. The decision does not abolish civil jurisdiction in areas where Family Courts are not established.

Thus, ouster under the Family Courts Act is territorial and conditional — not abstract or statewide.

---

II. Section 5 of the Shariat Act and the Repeal Doctrine: AIR 1963 AP 459

The most foundational authority on Muslim matrimonial jurisdiction remains Syed Shamsuddin v. Munira Begum, AIR 1963 AP 459 (P. Satyanarayana Raju, J.).

Originally, Section 5 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 vested jurisdiction in the District Judge to dissolve Muslim marriages. Section 6 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 repealed Section 5. Later, Section 6 was itself repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act XXV of 1942.

The argument was that repeal of Section 6 revived Section 5, thereby restoring exclusive District Court jurisdiction.

The High Court rejected the contention by applying:

• Section 7 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
• Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1942
• The rule stated in Ameerun-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1955 SC 352

The Court held:

Section 5 of the Shariat Act has not been revived. The lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (AIR 1963 AP 459)

This ruling conclusively establishes that no statutory District Court exclusivity survives under Muslim personal law.

Jurisdiction therefore reverted to the ordinary civil court hierarchy.

---

III. Section 15 CPC: The Lowest Competent Court Rule

Once exclusivity is absent, Section 15 CPC becomes operative:

Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

Thus, where no statute mandates District Court jurisdiction, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is the proper forum, subject to pecuniary and territorial competence.

This is structurally different from statutes such as:

• The Indian Divorce Act
• The Special Marriage Act
• The Guardians and Wards Act

Each of those statutes expressly confers jurisdiction upon the District Court. Muslim personal law enactments do not.

Statutory silence in one regime cannot be cured by analogy to another.

---

IV. Talaq, Triple Talaq, and Declaratory Jurisdiction

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaik Jareena v. Shaik Dariyavali, C.R.P. No.2477 of 2019 (05.01.2023), considered a suit before the Principal Junior Civil Judge seeking declaration that marriage stood dissolved by triple talaq.

The Court did not question the jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge. Instead, it rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC because triple talaq had been declared unconstitutional in Shayara Banu v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

The Court further relied upon:

• P.V. George v. State of Kerala, (2007) 3 SCC 557 — law declared by Supreme Court operates retrospectively unless otherwise specified.
• Mirza Fahim Beg v. Kahkasha Anjum, First Appeal No.322 of 2018 (MP HC, 09.05.2018) — triple talaq suits not maintainable post Shayara Banu.
• Showkat Hussain v. Nazia Jeelani, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 892.

The rejection was based on substantive invalidity — not forum incompetence.

Thus, Civil Judge (Junior Division) clearly possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate:

• Validity of talaq
• Invalidity of triple talaq
• Declaratory relief concerning marital status

---

V. Muslim Husband’s Right to Sue for Dissolution

The Telangana High Court in Mohammed Shahed Pasha v. Amreen Khatoon, C.R.P. No.4066 of 2025 (14.11.2025), set aside a docket order returning a dissolution suit filed by a Muslim husband.

The Court relied upon:

• Section 7 Explanation (a) of the Family Courts Act
• Rule 5(d)(vii) of the A.P. Family Courts Rules, 2005
• Mohammad Shah v. Smt. Chandani Begum, First Appeal No.1199 of 2022 (MP HC, 07.01.2025)

It held that no express statutory bar prevents a Muslim husband from instituting dissolution proceedings and that denial of forum would render him remediless.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that Muslim personal law disputes must be procedurally adjudicated under the Family Courts Act framework and relevant rules, without discriminatory exclusion.

This confirms access-to-justice as a jurisdictional principle.

---

VI. Transfer Jurisdiction and Implicit Competence

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dudekula Fathima v. Shaik Saida Vali, Transfer C.M.P. No.51 of 2025 (03.04.2025), transferred a divorce case to the Principal Junior Civil Judge.

A High Court exercising power under Section 24 CPC would not transfer proceedings to a court lacking jurisdiction.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Karima Bibi v. S.K. Mustafa, Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1698 of 2023 (20.09.2023), entertained transfer of restitution proceedings pending before a Civil Judge (Junior Division).

Implicit recognition of jurisdiction flows from these orders.

---

VII. Family Court Exclusivity: Madras Clarifications

The Madras High Court in:

• I. Ummusalma v. S.B. Syed Jaffar, C.R.P. No.1066 of 2023 (13.12.2023),
• Ameerkhan v. Anisha, C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1745 of 2025 (25.06.2025),

clarified that exclusion under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act operates only where a Family Court exists territorially. In its absence, ordinary civil courts retain jurisdiction.

---

VIII. Maintenance Proceedings: Incidental Divorce Determination

Courts under Section 125 CrPC determine validity of divorce incidentally. It is settled law that:

If alleged divorce is not effected in accordance with law, the wife continues to be entitled to maintenance and curtailment on assumption of divorce is impermissible.

If a Magistrate may determine divorce validity incidentally, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) may do so directly.

---

IX. Gauhati High Court Perspective: A Contextual Reading

The Gauhati High Court’s observation that in absence of Family Court, jurisdiction lies with the Principal Civil Court must be understood in statutory context.

Where statutes expressly confer District Court jurisdiction (Indian Divorce Act, Special Marriage Act), such limitation stands.

However, in Muslim personal law:

• No statute confers District Court exclusivity.
• Section 5 Shariat Act not revived (AIR 1963 AP 459).
• Section 9 CPC governs.
• Section 15 CPC directs filing before lowest competent court.

Thus, extending District Court exclusivity absent statutory mandate is doctrinally unsustainable.

---

X. Integrated Jurisdictional Position

The cumulative legal position is supported by:

• Syed Shamsuddin v. Munira Begum — AIR 1963 AP 459
• Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav — (2016) 13 SCC 308
• Shayara Banu v. Union of India — (2017) 9 SCC 1
• Shaik Jareena v. Shaik Dariyavali — CRP 2477/2019 (AP HC, 2023)
• Mohammed Shahed Pasha v. Amreen Khatoon — CRP 4066/2025 (Telangana HC)
• Mohammad Shah v. Chandani Begum — FA 1199/2022 (MP HC)
• I. Ummusalma v. S.B. Syed Jaffar — Madras HC (2023)
• Ameerkhan v. Anisha — Madras HC (2025)
• Dudekula Fathima v. Shaik Saida Vali — AP HC (2025)
• Karima Bibi v. S.K. Mustafa — SC (2023)

---

Conclusion

There is:

• No revived statutory District Court exclusivity under Muslim personal law.
• No express bar under the Shariat Act or Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act.
• A clear mandate under Sections 9 and 15 CPC.
• Conditional territorial ouster under the Family Courts Act only.

Therefore, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate:

• Dissolution of Muslim marriage
• Validity or invalidity of talaq
• Khula
• Mubaraat
• Restitution of conjugal rights
• Declaratory marital status

This conclusion is doctrinally consistent, statutorily grounded, and judicially supported.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Muslim..Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Muslim Matrimonial Disputes: Reconciling the Family Courts Act with the Doctrine of Plenary Civil Authority

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Muslim...: advocatemmmohan Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Muslim Matrimonial Disputes: Reconciling the Family Courts Act with the Doctrine...

Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Muslim Matrimonial Disputes: Reconciling the Family Courts Act with the Doctrine of Plenary Civil Authority

M.Murali Mohan Advocate

Introduction

Whether civil courts retain jurisdiction over Muslim matrimonial disputes outside the territorial limits of Family Courts is a question that lies at the intersection of statutory interpretation, procedural doctrine, and access to justice. While the Family Courts Act, 1984 introduced a specialized forum intended to exclusively adjudicate family disputes, the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is neither automatic nor universal. Instead, it is territorial, conditional, and operational.

A careful reading of statutory provisions and judicial precedents reveals a coherent but nuanced legal position: Family Court exclusivity arises only where such courts are actually established with territorial competence; otherwise, the ordinary civil court hierarchy revives.

This article examines the statutory structure, governing procedural principles, and key judicial decisions to articulate a doctrinally precise answer.

I. Statutory Framework: The Architecture of Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional scheme is constructed through the combined operation of Sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Establishment — Section 3

Section 3 authorizes the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, to establish Family Courts and define their local limits through notification. Jurisdiction therefore does not flow from the mere existence of the statute; it arises only upon the creation of a court for a specified geographical area.

Conferment — Section 7

Section 7 vests Family Courts with all jurisdiction exercisable by district courts and subordinate civil courts in suits relating to matrimonial relief, including dissolution of marriage, nullity, judicial separation, legitimacy, custody, maintenance, and disputes arising from marital relationships.

Exclusion — Section 8

Section 8 completes the legislative design by expressly barring district courts and subordinate civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters enumerated in Section 7 once a Family Court is established for that area.

Together, these provisions create a forum-substitution model: the Family Court replaces the civil court — but only within the territory assigned to it.

II. The Foundational Doctrine: Civil Courts as Courts of Plenary Jurisdiction

A settled principle of procedural law is that civil courts possess plenary jurisdiction unless expressly excluded. Ouster cannot be presumed; it must be explicit and operative.

Therefore, exclusion under the Family Courts Act depends on two jurisdictional triggers:

1. A Family Court must exist; and

2. It must possess territorial competence over the dispute.

If either element is absent, the civil court’s inherent jurisdiction survives.

III. Territoriality: The Jurisdiction-Triggering Event

A persistent misconception is that once the Family Courts Act is brought into force in a State, civil courts cease to entertain matrimonial matters statewide. This interpretation is doctrinally unsound.

The statute contemplates localized substitution, not abstract exclusivity.

Family Court established → civil jurisdiction excluded.
Family Court absent → civil jurisdiction revived.

Territorial notification is therefore not an administrative formality but the decisive jurisdictional event.

IV. Supreme Court Authority and Territorial Survival of Civil Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional structure under the Family Courts Act, 1984 received authoritative clarification from the Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308. The Court held that a suit seeking a declaration regarding matrimonial status — whether affirmative or negative — falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, and consequently, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts stands excluded once such a court is established.

Rejecting the High Court’s view that a “negative declaration” lay outside Family Court competence, the Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the dispute, not the form of the relief. Whether a party seeks recognition of a marriage or a declaration that no marriage exists is immaterial; both relate to matrimonial status and therefore belong to the specialized forum.

Harmonizing Sections 7, 8, and 20 of the Family Courts Act, the Court underscored that the statute has overriding effect and is designed to channel matrimonial adjudication into a single forum so as to prevent conflicting decrees and procedural fragmentation.

The ratio may therefore be stated as follows:

Disputes concerning matrimonial status lie exclusively before the Family Court, and civil court jurisdiction is barred once the specialized forum is territorially established (Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308).

This decision establishes the general rule of exclusivity under the Act.

However, equal care must be taken to recognize the boundary of the ruling. The Supreme Court proceeded on the factual premise that a competent Family Court existed. It did not address a situation where no Family Court exercised territorial jurisdiction. The judgment must therefore be understood as operating only after the statutory condition precedent — namely, the establishment of a Family Court for the relevant area — has been satisfied.

This territorial dimension was later illuminated by the Madras High Court in I. Ummusalma v. S.B. Syed Jaffar, C.R.P. No.1066 of 2023 (Madras High Court, decided on 13 December 2023), which held that where no Family Court extended to the territorial limits of the concerned area, the ordinary civil court was competent to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage. The Court effectively declared that exclusion under Sections 7 and 8 is territorial rather than statewide, and until a geographically competent Family Court is established, the ordinary civil forum remains available.

The remedial doctrine was further strengthened in Ameerkhan v. Anisha, C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1745 of 2025 (Madras High Court, decided on 25 June 2025), where the Court observed that the absence of an enabling provision in the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 does not bar a litigant from seeking dissolution of marriage. Statutory silence cannot create a remedial vacuum; where a competent forum exists, access to justice must prevail.

A significant procedural dimension emerges from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dudekula Fathima @ Shaik Fathima v. Shaik Saida Vali, Transfer C.M.P. No.51 of 2025 (A.P. High Court, decided on 03 April 2025). Exercising power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court withdrew a divorce proceeding from the Family Court at Guntur and transferred it to the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, citing severe hardship faced by the wife who resided over 150 kilometers away with a minor child and lacked independent income.

While the primary ratio concerned transfer principles — namely that the convenience of the wife must ordinarily prevail in matrimonial proceedings — the order carries an important implicit jurisdictional affirmation: a High Court would not transfer a case to a forum lacking competence. The transfer therefore presupposes that a Junior Civil Court is legally capable of adjudicating the matrimonial dispute where justice so demands.

Read together, these authorities reveal a coherent doctrinal structure:

• Family Court established → exclusive jurisdiction (Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308).

• Family Court absent → civil jurisdiction survives (I. Ummusalma v. S.B. Syed Jaffar, Madras HC, 2023).

There is no conflict between these decisions; rather, they represent complementary applications of the same statutory design. The Supreme Court supplies the governing rule of exclusivity, while the High Courts delineate its territorial operation.

The integrated principle that emerges is both simple and profound:

Exclusion of civil jurisdiction in matrimonial matters is conditional upon the territorial establishment of a Family Court; where such condition is unmet, the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts continues to operate.

V. Statutory Silence and Availability of Remedy

The Madras High Court further advanced the remedial doctrine in Ameerkhan v. Anisha, holding that the absence of an enabling provision in the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 does not bar a Muslim husband from seeking dissolution of marriage.

The Court recognized that the 1939 Act was enacted primarily to provide relief to Muslim women. However, statutory non-applicability does not extinguish substantive rights.

A litigant may invoke:

• personal or common law rights; and

• the broad matrimonial jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7.

The deeper jurisprudential message is unmistakable:

Statutory silence cannot create a remedial vacuum.

Where a competent forum exists, access to justice must prevail.

VI. Transfer Jurisdiction and Implied Competence of Civil Courts

A significant procedural dimension emerges from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dudekula Fathima @ Shaik Fathima v. Shaik Saida Vali. Invoking its supervisory authority under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court withdrew a matrimonial proceeding from the Family Court at Guntur and transferred it to the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Markapur. The transfer was principally grounded in considerations of substantive justice — the wife was residing more than 150 kilometers away, was burdened with the care of a minor child, and lacked independent financial resources.

Reaffirming the settled position of the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized that in matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife must ordinarily receive primacy. This principle is not merely procedural courtesy but reflects a deeper constitutional sensitivity toward ensuring meaningful access to justice in family disputes.

Although the immediate ratio concerns the parameters governing transfer petitions, the order carries a far-reaching implicit jurisdictional affirmation:

A High Court would not transfer a proceeding to a forum inherently lacking subject-matter competence.

The very act of transfer therefore presupposes that a Junior Civil Court is legally capable of adjudicating the matrimonial dispute when the demands of justice so require. This reasoning underscores an important structural truth — matrimonial jurisdiction is not doctrinally rigid nor institutionally monopolized by higher civil forums, particularly where statutory exclusion is absent.

The jurisprudential foundation for this position is traceable to the interpretation of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts only within the territorial limits for which a Family Court has been formally established. The exclusion is thus territorial rather than absolute. Consequently, in areas where no Family Court exists — or where transfer becomes necessary to prevent denial of justice — civil courts retain plenary jurisdiction over matrimonial causes.

This understanding was articulated with clarity by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Sailaja v. V. Koteswara Rao, (2003) 1 ALD 673, wherein the Court observed that the bar under Section 8 operates strictly within the notified jurisdiction of the Family Court. Outside that sphere, ordinary civil courts continue to function as competent forums for matrimonial adjudication. The Court further recognized that the High Court’s transfer power under Section 24 CPC may legitimately be exercised to move proceedings from a Family Court to a competent civil court when circumstances so warrant.

Taken together, these decisions illustrate a judicial commitment to procedural elasticity in service of substantive justice. They reaffirm that jurisdictional rules must not be applied with mechanical rigidity where such application would impede access to remedies. Instead, the High Court’s transfer power operates as a corrective instrument — ensuring that forum considerations advance, rather than obstruct, the administration of matrimonial justice.

VII. Revival of CPC Hierarchy

Where the Family Court mechanism is territorially inapplicable, jurisdiction reverts to the ordinary framework of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Two consequences follow:

Lowest Grade Competent Court

Section 15 CPC mandates institution of suits in the lowest grade court competent to try them. Competence depends on subject matter, valuation, and territorial limits — not merely judicial rank.

Thus, even a junior civil court may entertain a matrimonial status suit where legally empowered.

Revival, Not Creation

The civil court does not derive jurisdiction from the absence of a Family Court; rather, its pre-existing authority simply re-emerges once the statutory bar ceases to operate.

This reflects the resilience of plenary civil jurisdiction.

VIII. Muslim Personal Law and Forum Neutrality

Forum selection is governed by procedural law rather than theological structure. Muslim personal law may provide substantive grounds for dissolution, but the adjudicatory forum is determined by jurisdictional statutes.

Accordingly:

• Where a Family Court exists — it is exclusive.

• Where it does not — the civil court is competent.

The law thereby avoids a remedial vacuum while preserving legislative intent.

IX. The Integrated Jurisdiction Rule

When statutory provisions and judicial precedents are harmonized, the governing rule may be stated as follows:

General Rule

Where a Family Court with territorial jurisdiction is established, it enjoys exclusive authority over matrimonial disputes, and civil court jurisdiction stands expressly barred.

Exception

Where no such Family Court exists, the ordinary civil court of competent jurisdiction may entertain the dispute — including those arising under Muslim personal law.

These propositions are not contradictory; they operate sequentially within the same statutory design.

X. Jurisprudential Significance

This framework reflects three deeper judicial commitments:

Specialization without remedial vacuum: Specialized forums are favored, but never at the cost of denying relief.

Territorial control over exclusion: Jurisdiction shifts only when the statutory condition becomes geographically operational.

Preservation of civil authority: Civil courts remain the default guardians of legal rights unless clearly displaced.

Conclusion

The Family Courts Act does not abolish civil jurisdiction; it conditionally substitutes it. Where substitution is territorially effective, Family Courts exercise exclusive authority. Where it is not, the ordinary civil court stands restored.

The correct doctrinal formulation is therefore:

Civil court jurisdiction in matrimonial matters is excluded only where a Family Court with territorial competence is established; in its absence, the ordinary civil court retains authority to adjudicate such disputes, including those arising under Muslim personal law.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Wish you all a Happy Republic Day 2026

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Wish you all a Happy Republic Day 2026: One India, One Soul: A Republic Day Declaration In this era of rapidly shifting global tides, it is both just and necessary for us to stand ...

One India, One Soul: A Republic Day Declaration

In this era of rapidly shifting global tides, it is both just and necessary for us to stand as one—one nation, one people, one India. Regardless of caste, creed, language, or religion, our unity is not merely a choice; it is our ultimate shield. As we witness instability and chaos in troubled lands across the world, let us remember that while unity preserves national integrity, division only breeds ruin.

India is not a nation merely defined by the borders drawn in 1947; she is a timeless civilization. We are a legacy shaped by thousands of years of profound knowledge, immense sacrifice, and an unyielding moral compass. From the heights of the Himalayas to the shores of Kanyakumari, from the sands of Rajasthan to the tides of Bengal, our identity is a masterpiece woven by unity in diversity. We are many cultures, many faiths, and many languages—yet we breathe as one soul, guided by one Constitution and sheltered by one Tricolour.

The Republic we cherish was bought with the blood of our freedom fighters. The Constitution they bequeathed to us is more than a legal document; it is a sacred covenant of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is our collective duty to guard these ideals, ensuring that future generations inherit a nation that is stronger, safer, and more united than the one we hold today.

Let us consciously reject the shadows of hatred, division, and misinformation. Let us rise above narrow interests and remember: when India stands united, no force on earth can weaken her. National unity is our greatest defense, patriotism our greatest strength, and harmony our greatest victory.

On this proud Republic Day, let us bow before the Tricolour and honor our martyrs. Let us respect our soldiers who guard us, our farmers who feed us, our workers who build us, and our scholars who lead us. Today, let us pledge to work selflessly for the progress, dignity, and sovereignty of our beloved Motherland.

May the spirit of nationalism guide our thoughts and strengthen our actions as we illuminate the path of a New India—sovereign, self-reliant, peaceful, and eternal.

Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. Vande Mataram.

After commencement of trial, amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permissible only on strict proof of due diligence. Wrong advice of counsel or subsequent legal opinion does not amount to due diligence. A plaintiff who consciously files a suit for bare injunction despite an existing dispute of title cannot later amend the plaint to seek declaration. Amendment cannot be allowed to nullify admissions already made in evidence. Declaration of title without consequential relief is ineffective and cannot be permitted through belated amendment. Where the real dispute concerns identity of property, amendment for declaration of title is unnecessary and improper.

 Amendment of pleadings — Proviso — Due diligence.

Though Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings, the proviso mandates that where amendment is sought after commencement of trial, the applicant must establish that despite due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier.
(Paras 4–5)

---

Amendment after commencement of trial

Wrong legal advice — Not due diligence.

Change of counsel or subsequent advice to seek declaration of title does not constitute “due diligence” within the meaning of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
(Paras 1–4)

---

Suit for permanent injunction — Amendment to include declaration of title

Belated amendment — Not maintainable.

Where plaintiffs were aware of the alleged title dispute even on the date of filing of the suit and still chose to file a suit for bare injunction, they cannot later seek amendment to incorporate declaration of title after commencement of trial.
(Paras 4–5)

---

Admissions in cross-examination — Effect

Admissions elicited during cross-examination showing that cause of action pleaded was incorrect disentitle the plaintiff from seeking amendment which would nullify or overcome such admissions.
(Para 4)

---

Amendment — Prejudice to opposite party

An amendment which would:

• negate admissions already on record, or
• materially prejudice the defence of the opposite party,

is not liable to be allowed.
(Paras 4–5)

---

Vacant site — Possession follows title

Though possession of a vacant site ordinarily follows title, that principle cannot be invoked to justify a belated amendment when the plaintiff was aware of the dispute at the inception of the suit.
(Para 2)

---

Declaration of title — Consequential relief

Relief of declaration of title cannot stand alone.
Where removal of structures or other consequential reliefs are necessary, omission to seek such reliefs renders the amendment ineffective and incomplete.
(Para 5)

---

Identity of property — Distinction from title dispute

Where the core controversy relates to identity of property, mere incorporation of declaration of title does not resolve the dispute.
In such cases, amendment seeking declaration alone is not warranted.
(Para 6)

---

Multiplicity of proceedings — Limitation

Though avoidance of multiplicity of litigation is a relevant consideration, it cannot override:

• statutory requirement of due diligence, and
• prejudice caused to the opposite party.
(Paras 4–5)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. After commencement of trial, amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permissible only on strict proof of due diligence.

2. Wrong advice of counsel or subsequent legal opinion does not amount to due diligence.

3. A plaintiff who consciously files a suit for bare injunction despite an existing dispute of title cannot later amend the plaint to seek declaration.

4. Amendment cannot be allowed to nullify admissions already made in evidence.

5. Declaration of title without consequential relief is ineffective and cannot be permitted through belated amendment.

6. Where the real dispute concerns identity of property, amendment for declaration of title is unnecessary and improper.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, including after commencement of trial, subject to due diligence. No statutory limitation period exists for filing amendment applications. Amendments to written statements are to be considered liberally, even permitting additional grounds of defence. Where amendment merely elaborates an existing defence and relates to the real controversy, it ought to be allowed. A plea that suit for injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title is not a new defence when title dispute already exists in pleadings. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to upset a discretionary order passed on correct legal principles.

 

---

Constitution of India — Article 227

Supervisory jurisdiction — Scope.

Interference under Article 227 is permissible only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity.
Discretionary orders passed in accordance with settled principles of law do not warrant interference.
(Paras 7, 14)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17

Amendment of pleadings — Scope — Liberal approach.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.
(Paras 8–9)

---

Amendment after commencement of trial

Due diligence — Meaning and application.

Even after commencement of trial, amendment is permissible provided the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not raise the matter earlier.
There is no absolute bar against amendment after commencement of trial.
(Para 10)

---

Delay in seeking amendment

No limitation prescribed.

Neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor the Limitation Act prescribes any limitation period for filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Filing an amendment application after three years and seven months cannot by itself be treated as belated.
(Para 9)

---

Written statement — Amendment — Liberal consideration

Amendment of a written statement stands on a more liberal footing than amendment of plaint.
The defendant is entitled even to take additional or alternative grounds of defence.
(Para 13)

---

Amendment — Elaboration of existing pleadings

Where the proposed amendment merely elaborates or clarifies the defence already taken in the written statement, such amendment does not change the nature of defence and is liable to be allowed.
(Paras 4, 12)

---

Property dispute — Identity of property

Where the dispute primarily concerns:

• identity of the suit property,
• boundaries, and
• existence or non-existence of access road,

amendment explaining layout plans, master plans and plot boundaries directly relates to the real controversy and is permissible.
(Paras 10–12)

---

Advocate Commissioner — Dismissal — Effect

Dismissal of an earlier application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner does not bar a party from seeking amendment of pleadings to clarify facts relating to identity of property.
(Para 12)

---

Prejudice — Test

Amendment cannot be rejected unless it causes serious prejudice to the opposite party or deprives that party of a valuable accrued right.
Where plaintiff already had to meet the plea of title dispute, elaboration of the same defence causes no prejudice.
(Paras 12–13)

---

Injunction suit — Plea regarding declaration of title

Where the original written statement itself disputes plaintiff’s title, an additional plea that the suit is not maintainable without declaration of title does not introduce a new defence.
Such plea is only a legal consequence of the existing defence.
(Para 13)

---

Discretion of trial court

Trial court has wide discretionary power in allowing amendments of pleadings.
So long as the discretion is exercised judicially and on sound reasoning, it does not call for interference under Article 227.
(Paras 12–14)

---

Supreme Court precedent — Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh

Trial courts are empowered to permit even new grounds of defence in amendments to written statements.
(Para 13)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, including after commencement of trial, subject to due diligence.

2. No statutory limitation period exists for filing amendment applications.

3. Amendments to written statements are to be considered liberally, even permitting additional grounds of defence.

4. Where amendment merely elaborates an existing defence and relates to the real controversy, it ought to be allowed.

5. A plea that suit for injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title is not a new defence when title dispute already exists in pleadings.

6. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to upset a discretionary order passed on correct legal principles.