Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd, challenged an order dated 10th September 2018 passed by the learned trial judge allowing Chamber Summons No. 499 of 2015 filed by the respondent-plaintiff Shardadevi Vikramjeet Yadav seeking amendment of the plaint. The original suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking possession of a room premises and permanent alternate accommodation. The proposed amendment sought to add paragraphs 15(a) to 15(d) and new prayers (aa) and (bb) to the plaint. The amendment alleged that the plaintiff had purchased an additional room from one Baburam Jayshree Yadav on 1st March 1995, and that the defendant No.2 (petitioner) had entered into an agreement dated 27th September 2000 for allotment of permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of that room. It further alleged that the defendants had attempted to dispossess the plaintiff and had disconnected the electricity supply to the suit premises, which was a transit camp. The amendment sought a direction to restore electricity or for the electricity company to provide a fresh connection. The petitioner opposed the amendment on the ground that it introduced a new cause of action and changed the nature of the suit. The trial court allowed the amendment on payment of costs. The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, examined the schedule of amendments and held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely elaborated on the existing claim. The court noted that the original plaint already contained allegations regarding the agreement for alternate accommodation and possession, and the amendment only added details of a second room and the electricity disconnection, which were ancillary to the main relief. The court further held that since the amendment was sought before trial, it should be liberally allowed, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as they would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Pre-trial amendment - The court held that an amendment sought before trial should be liberally allowed unless it causes irreparable prejudice to the opposite party or introduces a wholly new and inconsistent cause of action. The amendment in question merely elaborated on the existing claim of possession and agreement for alternate accommodation, and did not change the nature of the suit. (Paras 5-10) B) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Amendment - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but only added details of an agreement for permanent rehabilitation accommodation and an allegation of electricity disconnection, which were ancillary to the original claim for possession and injunction. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Prejudice - Amendment - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that no prejudice was caused to the defendant as the amendment was sought before trial and the defendant would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. The trial court's order allowing amendment on payment of costs was upheld. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment of the plaint sought by the plaintiff introduces a new cause of action or changes the nature of the suit, and whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint on payment of costs.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Cause of action
- Pre-trial amendment
- Liberal approach
- No prejudice to opposite party
