Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, T. V. P. Bhaskar Rao, filed a suit for specific performance of contract, injunction, and other reliefs against M/s. Susheela Homes & Properties Private Ltd. and its directors. The suit was pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, 'B' Court, Vasco-da-Gama. The petitioner alleged that he had paid Rs. 3,00,000 as part consideration for the purchase of a flat and obtained receipts. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to amend the plaint. The proposed amendment sought to incorporate details of payments made to the respondent company and to add a prayer for refund of the amount in the alternative. The Trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 20/04/2012, holding that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action and cause prejudice to the defendants. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court examined the proposed amendment and found that it did not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action. The amendment merely clarified the existing pleadings regarding payments and added an alternative prayer for refund, which was consistent with the original claim for specific performance. The Court noted that the respondents could file an additional written statement to meet the amended pleadings and that no irreparable prejudice would be caused. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Trial Court's order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the suit and dispose it of within one year.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Leave to Amend - The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to incorporate details of payments made to the respondent company and to add a prayer for refund of the amount. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that it would introduce a new cause of action. The High Court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action; it merely clarified existing pleadings and added an alternative prayer. The Court allowed the amendment, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as they could file an additional written statement. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action and cause prejudice to the defendants.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Trial Court's order dated 20/04/2012, and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the suit and dispose it of within one year.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- cause of action
- prejudice to opposite party
- delay in amendment
