Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Samrudhi Groups, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit for specific performance of contract (O.S.No.281/2017) against the respondents in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to amend the plaint to incorporate an alternative relief of refund of the advance sale consideration paid to the respondents. The trial court rejected the application by order dated 10.01.2022, holding that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the impugned order. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both sides. The Court observed that the amendment sought was only to add an alternative relief of refund of advance amount, which is expressly permissible under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court noted that the suit was still at the pre-trial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the amendment was allowed. The Court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit, as the alternative relief is ancillary to the main relief of specific performance and does not alter the fundamental character of the suit. The Court further held that allowing the amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and enable effective adjudication of all disputes between the parties. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 was quashed, and the trial court was directed to allow I.A.No.5 and permit the petitioner to amend the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of Plaint - Alternative Relief - Suit for Specific Performance - Petitioner sought to amend plaint to include alternative relief of refund of advance amount - Trial court rejected on ground that amendment would change nature of suit - Held that amendment sought is only to add alternative relief which is permissible under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and does not change the nature of suit - Amendment necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Order rejecting amendment set aside (Paras 1-10). B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 22 - Alternative Relief - Suit for Specific Performance - Plaintiff entitled to claim alternative relief of refund of earnest money or advance amount - Amendment to include such relief is permissible even at later stage if no prejudice caused - Held that trial court erred in rejecting amendment application on ground of change in nature of suit (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint seeking to incorporate an alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 10.01.2022 on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.281/2017 passed by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, is quashed. The trial court is directed to allow I.A.No.5 and permit the petitioner to amend the plaint.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Alternative relief
- Section 22 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Nature of suit not changed
- Liberal approach to amendments
- Pre-trial stage
- No prejudice to opposite party
