Trial Court Empowered To Amend Preliminary Decree To Do Justice Between Parties: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that trial courts are empowered to amend preliminary decree to do justice between the parties.

Referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baliram Atmaram Kelapure vs. Indirabai and S.Satnam Singh & Ors. vs. Surender Kaur & Anr. relied upon the parties, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held

“The provision of Section 97 C.P.C. or interpretation of the said provision by Hon'ble Apex Court does not restrict the power of the trial Court to amend the preliminary decree in case it necessitates to do justice between the parties.”

Section 97 CPC provides for appeal against decree. The Court held that Section 97 does not bar an application for amendment of a decree.

Respondent-Garib Chandra filed Original Suit No.62 of 1995 against Shiv Narayan, defendant-petitioner for partition of half share in the suit property. In the preliminary decree both were given half share each. Subsequently, Plaintiff-respondent filed for preparation of final decree and later filed an application seeking amendment in the preliminary decree which was allowed. Petitioner filed a civil revision against this amendment in the decree, which was rejected.

Meanwhile, Petitioner-Shiv Narayan filed an application before the Trial Court contradicting the amendment application. This application by the defendant-petitioner was rejected. Petitioner challenged this order as well as the order in the Civil Revision before the High Corut under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for petitioner argued that an event which had taken place before the passing of the preliminary decree could not be brought on record to amend the decree.

The Court observed that there were two separate sale deeds and an endowment had also been created by the Smt. Sundi who had transferred her property by way of sale deed to petitioner, respondent and her father.

“Once an endowment is made to a Deity, ownership stands transferred to the Deity and unless and until the endowment is set aside, the Deity remains the owner of endowment so made.”

The Court held that the amendment to the preliminary decree in the partition suit of 1995 was allowed only after the endowment deed of 1969 had come to light. It observed that the Apex Court in Phoolchand vs. Gopal Lal, S.Sai Reddy vs. S.Narayana Reddy and Prema vs. Nanje Gowda and Ors. held that if a party of the partition suit dies, the shares can be redrawn and preliminary decree drawn can be amended in case of such events.

In S.Satnam Singh & Ors. vs. Surender Kaur & Anr, the Supreme Court held that

“Indisputably, section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an appeal against preliminary decree but the said provision, in our opinion, would not be a bar to file an application for amendment of a decree.

21. The Court may not have a suo motu power to amend a decree but the same would not mean that the Court cannot rectify a mistake. If a property was subject-matter of pleadings and the Court did not frame an issue which it ought to have done,it can, at a later stage, when pointed out, may amend the decree.”

Holding that these judgments do not restrict amendment of preliminary decree, Justice Agarwal held that since the registered endowment deed of 1969 surfaced in the year 2017 and was thereafter brought to the notice of the Court in 2018 before the Final Decree was issued, the amendment could be made. It also held that the events though happened prior were not within the control or knowledge of the parties.

“In all the cases, referred above, only the intervening event had taken place, which was sought to be amended in the preliminary decree, which the Court had allowed and held that such intervening event can be taken note of and preliminary decree may be amended. The Court has never restricted for any event which was beyond the control of parties and also not within its knowledge.”

Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Shiv Narayan Gupta vs. Garib Chandra 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 215 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4107 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 215

Click Here To Read/Download Order