The Supreme Court has allowed plaintiffs in a long-running property dispute to amend their pleadings after discovering a compromise decree that affected the disputed chain of title.
Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan held on 12 October that an amendment should not be rejected merely because limitation is arguable and depends on disputed facts. The proposed pleading was necessary to determine the full controversy and avoid fragmented proceedings over the same land.
The court found that the plaintiffs had explained when they obtained certified copies of the earlier suit and decree, satisfying the due-diligence requirement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It set aside the trial court and Orissa High Court orders, allowed the amendment subject to ₹25,000 costs and preserved all objections—including limitation, maintainability, title and the effect of the compromise decree—for trial.