In Brief
M. Revanna and four co-plaintiffs sought to amend their partition suit filed in 1993, claiming that a partition had already occurred in 1972. The amendment was sought only in 2008, after trial evidence had been recorded. The opposing plaintiff (Plaintiff No. 6) objected, contending the partition had never taken place and wished to continue the suit. The Supreme Court held that the application was belated, not bona fide, and fundamentally changed the suit's character. The Court confirmed the High Court's order rejecting the amendment, finding the unexplained 15-year delay, tactical litigation conduct, and the prejudice to the opposing party made the amendment impermissible."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.