Attempt to Amend Pleadings Post-Trial Dismissed to Uphold Res Judicata Principles
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the Waqf Tribunal's decision to disallow an amendment to a plaint after the trial had commenced, upholding the principles of res judicata. The division bench, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and G. Girish, delivered the judgment on December 19, 2025, in the case of Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K.J. Paul and others.
The case revolves around the denial of an amendment sought by Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal, the petitioner and mutawalli of the Thykavu Mosque in Mattancherry, Kochi. Thangal had filed an application to amend the plaint in W.O.S No.8/2023, incorporating a plea for recovery of possession. This came after his earlier suit, W.O.S No.45/2022, seeking similar relief was dismissed on merits by the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode.
The High Court noted that allowing such an amendment would effectively enable the petitioner to circumvent the doctrine of res judicata. This doctrine is aimed at ensuring finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions, thereby preventing re-litigation of decided issues. The court emphasized that the amendment, if permitted, would unjustly prejudice the respondents by reopening a matter already adjudicated.
The judgment reiterated that amendments after the commencement of trial are permissible only under exceptional circumstances, specifically when a party, despite due diligence, could not have raised the matter earlier. In Thangal's case, the court found no such diligence, as the plea for recovery of possession was already adjudicated upon, and the petitioner failed to challenge the dismissal of W.O.S No.45/2022 through an appeal.
The court further remarked that amendments should not be allowed if they are intended to re-agitate issues previously settled, as this would undermine the principles of res judicata and the integrity of judicial decisions. The decision to dismiss the amendment application was deemed consistent with established legal principles, ensuring justice is served without the undue burden of repetitive litigation.
Thangal's counsel argued that the amendment was necessary due to the dismissal of the previous suit, contending that the lack of independent cause of action necessitated the change. However, the court dismissed this argument, highlighting that the dismissal in W.O.S No.45/2022 was based on substantive grounds, including the improper authorization of the mutawalli to file for recovery, and not merely procedural deficiencies.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court affirmed the Waqf Tribunal's stance, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural doctrines that prevent the abuse of judicial processes. The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to uphold the sanctity of final judgments and the equitable administration of justice.
Bottom Line:
Amendment of plaint to incorporate a plea already adjudicated on merits in a prior suit is impermissible as it would circumvent the principles of res judicata and prejudice the opposite party.
Statutory provision(s):
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VI Rule 17
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 11 (Res Judicata)
Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K.J. Paul, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838115
