Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Lata w/o Kailash Bankar, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Municipal Council, Chandrapur. After filing the suit, she sought to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events, specifically that a notice dated 13.06.2005 for grant of permission for minor repairs was not responded to within 60 days, and thus permission was deemed granted under Section 189(6) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act. The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that allowing it would make the suit premature and cause prejudice to the defendant. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court observed that the petitioner was not precluded from filing a fresh suit for the new cause of action, but that would lead to multiplicity of litigation. The amendment sought was incidental or ancillary to the original cause of action. Any prejudice to the respondent could be compensated by costs. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the trial court's order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited within two weeks. The respondent was given liberty to amend its written statement.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Subsequent Events - The court held that amendment seeking to incorporate subsequent events, which are incidental or ancillary to the original cause of action, should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation, and prejudice can be compensated by costs - Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, Section 189(6) (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint seeking to incorporate subsequent events regarding deemed permission under Section 189(6) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 19th September, 2005, and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited within two weeks. The respondent was given liberty to amend its written statement.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- subsequent events
- deemed permission
- Section 189(6) Maharashtra Municipal Council Act
- multiplicity of litigation
- costs as compensation
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 194
Writ Petition No. 5850 of 2005
Shri Prashant Thakare for petitioner, Shri M.I. Dhatrak for respondent
Sau. Lata w/o Kailash Bankar
The Municipal Council, Chandrapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of amendment application in a civil suit for declaration and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events regarding deemed permission under Section 189(6) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that it would make the suit premature and cause prejudice to the defendant.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the amendment application vide order dated 19th September, 2005.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application on the ground of prejudice and prematurity.
Whether the amendment sought was incidental or ancillary to the original cause of action.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and that prejudice could be compensated by costs.
Respondent supported the trial court's order, submitting that it was a proper exercise of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Amendment of plaint to incorporate subsequent events that are incidental or ancillary to the original cause of action should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation, and any prejudice to the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
Judgment Excerpts
It can be seen that the petitioner is not precluded from filing another suit for the cause of action, which is sought to be raised by way of amendment. However, that would lead to multiplicity of the litigation.
In any case, the amendment which is sought to be carried out, is incidental or ancillary to the cause of action that is already raised in the complaint.
In so far as the prejudice that is caused to the respondent/defendant is concerned, that can be compensated by saddling the costs.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 129/2005 for declaration and injunction. After filing, she applied for amendment to incorporate subsequent events. The trial court rejected the amendment on 19.09.2005. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Council Act: Section 189(6)
