Amendment in plaint

Plaintiff instituted two separate suits however the second suit was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the previously instituted suit was pending between the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter, therefore, the relief sought in the second suit, i.e. challenge to the pedigree table could be made in the prior suit, after seeking amendment of plaint

Trial Court allowed the amendment in earlier suit

Revisional Court rejected the revision petition filed by defendant

Validity

Rule 17 of O. VI, C.P.C. had given ample power to the court to allow amendments in the pleadings to conclusively and effectively decide the controversy between the parties

Proposed amendment was not only just but also necessary to resolve the actual controversy between the parties

However, after permission of amendment, the plaintiff had drastically changed the entire complexion of the suit and instead of adding the relief regarding challenging the pedigree table in the plaint, he had submitted altogether a new plaint which was not permissible under the law

Amended plaint was rejected/canceled and the plaintiff was directed to submit a plaint by only adding a para in respect of challenging the pedigree table and adding Collector as party to the original plaint

Impugned orders were maintained

Writ petition was partially allowed.

Plaintiff/respondent sought amendment in plaint which was declined by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the same

Validity

Only rider was that party could not be allowed to substitute a new cause of action or introduce a cause of action distinct from the one which was basis of suit and such was not situation of plaintiff/respondent

Suit property belonged to forefathers of parties and defendants/petitioners were sons of plaintiff/respondent who were so-called legal heirs of their grandfather

Plaintiff/respondent was not in possession therefore, he should have prayed or relief in plaint

Such defect was pointed out in written statement that plaintiff/respondent was out of possession, therefore, amendment in prayer clause was made so as to insert relief of possession

Addition of relief of declaration and possession in suit did not in any manner changed character of the suit nor introduced any new cause of action

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

During pendency of suit, plaintiff amended his plaint due to which value of suit increased and same resulted in change of forum

Suit pending before Banking Court was transferred to High Court in its banking jurisdiction and it was dismissed by Single Judge in High Court being barred by limitation

Validity

Held, such was a case where suit was filed in Banking Court keeping in view original valuation of suit as Banking Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit

Valuation for jurisdiction was modified only when amendment in plaint was allowed

Amended value exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction which necessitated return of plaint for presentation to court which would have jurisdiction keeping in view amended valuation of suit

Neither S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 had application nor circumstances attracted its application to facts of case

No reason existed to move application for exclusion of period consumed in proceedings before Banking Court

Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court as suit was instituted within six years hence issue of limitation was based on misreading of record, misinterpretation and misapplication of law

Division Bench remanded case to Single Judge under O. XLI, R. 23, C.P.C. as findings on other issues were not recorded and suit was dismissed on preliminary point of limitation

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs during pendency of suit filed application for amendment in the plaint and prayer clause seeking possession of suit property which was allowed

Contention of defendant was that proposed amendment had changed the nature of suit

Validity

Court was to be liberal in allowing amendment in the pleadings which were necessary to determine the matter in issue

No suit be dismissed for the reason that a portion of relief to which the party was entitled had not been claimed in the plaint

Court for amendment of plaint had to examine whether it would substitute or change a cause of action on the basis of which lis had been instituted

Proposed amendment in the present case would not introduce a new cause of action rather same were necessary to decide the real matter in controversy

Plaintiffs were not in possession on the suit property and they should have prayed for the said relief in the plaint

Character of the suit would not change by way of proposed amendment in the present case as suit for declaration could be treated as a suit for specific performance

Party could not be allowed to substitute a new cause of action or introduce a cause of action distinct from the one which was the basis of the suit

Impugned orders had been passed in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the averments that he was owner of water channel at his properties while the defendants illegally diverted the water channel towards their properties

Plaintiff through application for amendment in plaint sought inclusion of khasra number in the list of suit properties

Trial Court dismissed the application by observing that it did not disclose any cause of action and the plaintiff was provided several opportunities to record his statement, but he failed to get his statement recorded and wanted to prolong the matter

Appellate Court dismissed revision petition

Validity

Plaintiff had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the concurrent findings of the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Plaintiffs sought amendment in plaint to the extent that the word 'hibanama' may be substituted with 'oral sale' because suit land was transferred in their favour by way of oral sale but inadvertently the transaction was recorded in the plaint as gift

Trial Court dismissed the application whereas revisional court allowed the application by setting aside the order of Trial Court

Validity

Perusal of statements made by the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs revealed that they claimed declaration of title in respect of suit land on the basis of oral transaction of gift and thus, they could not be allowed to urge on the basis of unsanctioned mutation that in fact transaction of transferring the suit land was sale but inadvertently in the plaint it was written as gift

Although suit was one for declaration and after the proposed amendment it would continue to be a declaratory suit and there would be no change in the character of the suit, but the character of plaintiff's claim would be changed

Amendment sought to be made at the fag-end of the trial particularly after making final arguments and at the stage of announcement of judgment would prejudice the defendant in his defence which he had already filed in pursuance of the case set up by the plaintiffs in their plaint

Order passed by Revisional Court was set aside and that of Trial Court restored

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Prayed amendment was a mere formality as in pre-emption suit the ultimate relief was delivery of possession of pre-empted property

Court on grant of decree of pre-emption had to direct for delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff from the date of payment of decretal amount

Pre-emption suit was basically a suit for possession

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Application of plaintiff-Bank seeking amendment in plaint, in a pending suit for recovery, for incorporating settlement agreement between the parties was dismissed by the Banking Court and in the said order, Banking Court disposed of the suit on the ground that the suit had become infructuous

Validity

Impugned order had stated that the settlement agreement did not have any nexus with the suit and that the settlement agreement did not make mention of the suit, however, despite said finding, the Banking Court disposed of the suit on the ground that the parties had settled the suit without permission of the Court, which was a contradiction in terms

Pending suit had to be decided on its merits and no concept of disposing of the suit in the manner done in the impugned order existed, and therefore, the Banking Court could not have disposed of the suit in the said manner

Application of the plaintiff-Bank for incorporating amendment to the plaint, however, was not tenable as there existed no cause for seeking said amendment and plaintiff-Bank could certainly file a fresh suit in respect of any cause of action under the settlement agreement

Impugned order was set aside to the extent of the disposal of the suit and the dismissal of application under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. for amendment of plaint, was sustained

Appeal was partly allowed, accordingly.

Trial Court allowed amendment in the plaint, which having been upheld by appellate court below in civil revision, plaintiff had filed writ petition, which was also dismissed in limine without giving any reason by the Chief Court

Impugned order of Chief Court was not a speaking order as no reason had been given while dismissing writ petition in limine

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed

Order of Chief Court was set aside and remanded with direction to hear the parties afresh, and decide the same on its merits.

Suit for declaration was dismissed against which appeal was filed wherein application for amendment in the plaint was moved which was dismissed

Validity

Plaintiff intended to add some facts relevant to the dispute which were helpful for proper adjudication of the matter

Nature and shape of the pleadings would not change if required amendments were allowed

Defendants would also be entitled to amend the written statement as per amended plaint

Filing of an application for amendment at the belated stage was no valid ground for its rejection

Amendment could be introduced at any stage of proceedings provided that same was necessary for proper disposal of the case

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and application for amendment of plaint was accepted with cost of Rs.10,000/

Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were also set aside in circumstances and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh after taking amended plaint and written statement from the parties

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Trial Court dismissed the suit against which appeal was filed wherein application for amendment in the plaint was moved which was dismissed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Plaintiff had not sought any change or amendment in the relief of the plaint

Amendment sought was averred in the written statement but plaintiff did not apply for any such amendment till final disposal of the suit

No defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Application for amendment in date of alleged agreement, khasra, khewat and mutation numbers of suit-land given in plaint

Application was allowed to the extent of date of alleged agreement only

Validity

Defendant had denied agreement to sell for the specific performance of which plaintiff instituted the suit, and description of property to be added through proposed amendment would make no difference to plea raised by defendant in his written statement

Trial Court allowed plaintiff to correct date of agreement to sell and correction of description of property would not have changed complexion of the suit which would remain a suit for specific performance

Courts below should have allowed proposed amendment which entailed more detailed description of suit propriety and correction of khasra and khewat numbers

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of the defendant was that amendment sought could not be allowed as the same would change the nature of the suit and that after conclusion of evidence, amendment in plaint could not be allowed

Validity

Defendants did not resist amendment to the extent of correction of square number of suit property but only objected to the addition of prayer of possession in the prayer clause; which would neither change the nature of suit nor cause of action would be affected

Relief for possession was a consequential relief for a suit for declaration

Constitutional petition was dismissed.