Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohan s/o Maluram Agrawal, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents, Smt. Kaladevi wd/o Sawarmal Agrawal and Prashant s/o Sawarmal Agrawal, in relation to a Pressing Unit leased to him by respondent No.1. The lease was for 7 years at Rs. 6,000 per year, expiring on 1/8/2000. The petitioner claimed that the lease continued after expiry as it was not terminated, and that the respondents started constructing a wall at points A and B of the unit and were trying to raise its height. He sought removal of the wall and restraint from further construction. The respondents resisted the suit, contending that the petitioner had delivered vacant possession in the first week of November 2001. On 4/7/2005, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to bring on record subsequent events, including his alleged dispossession. The trial court rejected the application by order dated 19/9/2005, holding that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court observed that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and did not change the nature of the suit. It held that the trial court had exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Subsequent Events - The petitioner-plaintiff sought amendment to bring on record facts regarding his alleged dispossession after filing of the suit. The trial court rejected the amendment on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and did not change the nature of the suit. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the impugned order. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Liberal Approach - The court reiterated that amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, unless it causes irreparable prejudice to the opposite party. The court found that the amendment sought was bona fide and necessary for effective adjudication. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint seeking to bring subsequent events on record, on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19/9/2005, and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- subsequent events
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- liberal approach to amendment
- change in nature of suit
