Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner alleged that the defendants trespassed into the suit property and illegally put up construction. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the construction. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the prayer for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation, as the existence of construction was mentioned in the written statement filed by the first defendant in 2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court. The High Court observed that the petitioner initially filed a suit for bare injunction, which was subsequently amended to one for declaration and possession. The court noted that the amendment sought was based on a subsequent event, i.e., the construction allegedly made by the defendants after the suit was filed. The court held that such an amendment based on a subsequent event gives rise to a fresh cause of action and is not barred by limitation. The court emphasized that courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice between the parties. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the amendment application, directing the trial court to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint and proceed with the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Limitation - Subsequent Events - The petitioner sought amendment to include a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove construction allegedly made by defendants during pendency of suit. The trial court dismissed the application as barred by limitation. The High Court held that the amendment was based on a subsequent event (construction after filing of suit) and not on the same cause of action, thus not barred by limitation. The court emphasized that courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 5-7) B) Limitation Act - Amendment of Pleadings - Fresh Cause of Action - Section 3 - The court distinguished between amendment based on pre-existing facts and amendment based on subsequent events. Since the construction was allegedly made after the suit was filed, it constituted a fresh cause of action, and the amendment was not barred by limitation. The trial court's order was set aside. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an amendment seeking inclusion of a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove construction allegedly put up by defendants during pendency of suit is barred by limitation when the existence of construction was mentioned in the written statement filed in 2002.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the order of the trial court dated 03.03.2025, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint as sought in I.A.No.4 of 2025. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Limitation for amendment
- Fresh cause of action
- Subsequent events
- Liberal approach to amendment
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
