The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dismissing an appeal held that against the rejection of amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C during the proceeding of Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no appeal lies under Section 299 of the Act, 1925.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Indra Bahadur Yadav.
The appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby the amendment application of the appellant was dismissed.
The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had filed a petition u/s 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of letters of administration and during its pendency, he filed an amendment application which was rejected by the impugned order.
It is further submitted that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous as if the amendment was allowed that would not change the nature of the suit as he simply wanted to add the date of the will dated 4.6.1996 in the plaint.
After considering the aforesaid submission, a question arises as to whether against the rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C by the District Judge, while hearing the suit u/s 278 of the Act, 1925, an appeal lies under Section 299 of the Act, 1925.
On that issue, counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Section 299 of the Act, 1925, every order passed by the District Judge in the proceeding under Section 278 of the Act, 1925, is appealable.
The Court observed that,
From perusal of Section 299 of the Act, 1925, it appears that under this Section only those orders are appealable which were passed by the District Judge in exercise of power, conferred upon him under the Act and same will be in accordance with the provision of CPC.
From perusal of the Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, it is clear that against the rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17, no appeal lies. Appeal is creation of statute which cannot be inferred without statutory provision. Section 295 of the Act provides that if the proceeding u/s 278 of the Act, 1925 is contentious, the same will proceed in the form of regular suit, according to the provision of CPC.
On combine reading of Sections 299 and 278 of the Act, 1925, it is clear that contentious proceeding u/s 278 of the Act, 1925 will proceed as regular suit and appeal against any order, passed during the proceeding u/s 278 of the Act, 1925, will be in accordance with the CPC. Therefore, the Court holds that the appeal u/s 299 of the Act, 1925 will lie only against those orders that are appealable as per Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and rejection of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not find place in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.
In view of the above analysis, the Court is of the view that against the rejection of amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C during the proceeding of Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no appeal lies u/s 299 of the Act, 1925 and the same can be challenged by the appellant either in revision u/s 115 C.P.C or under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal with a liberty to the appellant to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceeding.