Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.103/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer for refund of the advance sale consideration paid to the defendants. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 07.08.2015, holding that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the facts and the impugned order. It noted that the suit was for specific performance and the amendment sought to add an alternative relief for refund of the advance amount. The court observed that the amendment was based on the same cause of action and was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the application as the amendment did not change the nature of the suit but merely provided an alternative remedy. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment application, directing the trial court to permit the plaintiff to carry out the amendment. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Alternative Relief - The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative prayer for refund of advance sale consideration. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and did not change the nature of the suit as it was based on the same cause of action. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the trial court's order. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Multiplicity of Proceedings - The court observed that if the amendment is not allowed, the plaintiff would be forced to file a separate suit for refund, leading to multiplicity of litigation. The amendment was held to be in the interest of justice and necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint to include an alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.103/2014 is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the plaintiff to carry out the amendment as sought in I.A.No.3.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- alternative relief
- specific performance
- refund of advance consideration
- multiplicity of proceedings
- liberal approach to amendment
- prejudice to opposite party
