Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Pinky Devi and Mr. Neerajsingh Sunder Singh Thakur, filed two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 31-1-2012 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing their chamber summons for amendment of plaints in S.C. Suit No.2242 of 2008 and S.C. Suit No.2072 of 2008. The original plaintiff, Smt. Pinky Devi, had filed the suits for declaration and injunction regarding property claimed under a conveyance deed in favor of her husband. She sought amendment to add her son (petitioner no.2) as a party and to correct mistakes in dates and description of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the chamber summons, holding that the amendments would change the cause of action. The High Court, per Justice R.M. Savant, allowed the petitions, setting aside the trial court's orders and allowing the amendments. The court held that the amendments were necessary for proper adjudication, did not change the cause of action, and should be liberally allowed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court also noted that the earlier amendment had been allowed, and the proposed amendments were not barred by limitation or res judicata. The respondent's opposition was rejected, and the petitions were allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendments which do not change the cause of action and are necessary for proper adjudication should be liberally allowed. The trial court erred in dismissing the amendment applications on the ground that they would change the cause of action. (Paras 5-7) B) Civil Procedure - Addition of Party - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Necessary Party - The court held that adding the son of the original owner as a party is necessary for effective adjudication of the suit and does not change the nature of the suit. (Paras 4-6) C) Civil Procedure - Correction of Errors - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court held that correcting mistakes in dates and description of property is permissible and does not introduce a new case. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment of plaint seeking to add a party and correct mistakes in dates and description of property changes the cause of action and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the chamber summons for amendment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated 31-1-2012, and allowed the chamber summons for amendment. The trial court was directed to permit the amendments and proceed with the suits. Costs were imposed on the respondents.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Cause of action
- Liberal approach
- Addition of party
- Correction of errors
