Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Shashisumeet Production Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed a Commercial Suit No. 621 of 2017 seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property against the defendant, Kuresh R. Kushesh @ Dhiren. The suit was filed in 2017. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion No. 665 of 2019 seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The proposed amendment sought to incorporate events that occurred after the filing of the suit, including the defendant's alleged termination of the agreement, filing of criminal complaints by the plaintiffs, and the defendant's refusal to execute the sale deed. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought to add an alternative prayer for refund of earnest money under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The defendant opposed the amendment, contending that the suit was not maintainable as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and prejudice the defendant. The court, after hearing both sides, allowed the amendment. It held that the amendment was necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties and did not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the suit. The court noted that the alternative relief for refund of earnest money was permissible under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act and arose from the same transaction. The court also clarified that the amendment was allowed without prejudice to the defendant's right to challenge the maintainability of the suit as a commercial suit, which could be decided at trial. The court directed the plaintiffs to carry out the amendment within two weeks and granted the defendant time to file an additional written statement. The Notice of Motion was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Subsequent Events - The plaintiffs sought amendment to incorporate events occurring after filing of suit, including termination of agreement and filing of criminal complaints, and to add alternative relief of refund of earnest money under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court allowed the amendment, holding that it is necessary for determination of real controversy and does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the defendant, who can still raise the issue of maintainability. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Relief - Alternative Relief - Section 22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The amendment sought to include a prayer for refund of earnest money in the alternative to specific performance. The court held that such alternative relief is permissible and does not introduce a new cause of action, as it arises from the same transaction. (Paras 5-8) C) Commercial Law - Maintainability of Suit - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable as a commercial suit. The court observed that the amendment does not affect the maintainability issue, which can be decided at trial. The amendment was allowed without prejudice to the defendant's right to challenge maintainability. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events and additional reliefs, and whether such amendment would prejudice the defendant or change the nature of the suit.
Final Decision
The court allowed the Notice of Motion and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as proposed. The amendment was allowed without prejudice to the defendant's right to challenge the maintainability of the suit as a commercial suit. The plaintiffs were directed to carry out the amendment within two weeks, and the defendant was granted time to file an additional written statement.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Section 22 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- maintainability
- subsequent events
- prejudice
- limitation
