Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh G. Chhabra, a tenant, challenged an order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No.315 of 2011. The impugned order allowed an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint. The suit was originally filed under Section 16(g) and 16(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, seeking possession, mesne profits, and arrears of rent. The amendment was sought to add additional grounds for eviction. The petitioner contended that the amendment changed the nature of the suit and was based on facts within the plaintiff's knowledge before trial, and thus should have been rejected. The court noted that the amendment had already been carried out. The court held that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, even if they change the nature of the suit, as long as no irreparable prejudice is caused to the opposite party. Since the defendant had not yet filed a written statement, the amendment was allowed. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court held that amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, even if it changes the nature of the suit, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party which can be compensated by costs. (Paras 6-7) B) Rent Control - Suit for Possession - Sections 16(g) and 16(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Amendment to Include Additional Grounds - The plaintiff-landlord sought amendment to add grounds for eviction after commencement of trial. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the defendant-tenant had not yet filed written statement and the amendment was necessary for complete adjudication. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after commencement of trial, when the facts sought to be added were within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Liberal approach to amendment
- Change in nature of suit
- Pre-trial amendment
- Due diligence
