Ragu Thilak
D. John Vs. S.Rayappan & Ors [2001] Insc 35 (23 January 2001)
K.T.
Thomas & R.P. Sethi. Sethi,J.
L.J
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
The
appellant filed a suit against the respondents praying for a decree of
permanent injunction restraining them, their agents and subordinates from demolishing the compound wall in the suit scheduled property. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents-defendants were alleged to have entered the appellant's house unauthorisedly and demolished the compound wall
on north, east and western side. They were also alleged to have damaged the
gate in the entrance.
In
view of the subsequent developments, the appellant filed an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint for adding paras 8(a) to 8(f)
in his plaint.
The
trial court rejected his prayer and the revision petition filed against that
order was dismissed by the High Court vide order impugned in this appeal,
mainly on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, would result in
introducing a new case and cause of action. It was further held that as the
appellant was seeking recovery of damages, the amendment could not be allowed
as it would allegedly change the nature of the suit. It was also observed that
the amendment sought was barred by limitation.
After
referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50], L.J.
Leach & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jardine Skinner & Company [1957 SCR
438], Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. [1974 (2) SCC 393], M/s.Ganesh
Trading Co. v. Moji Ram [1978 (2) SCC 91] and various other authorities, this
Court in B.K.N. Pillai v. P.Pillai & Anr. [JT 1999 (10) SC 61] held:
"The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to
alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of
the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid
down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is
equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical
approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases
where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law
should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice
between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled
for multiplicity of litigation.
If the
aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not
be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the
litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by
time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the
perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plant which were sought
to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of
the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter
of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.
In
view of the legal position, as noted hereinabove, the impugned order is not
sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned
order and permitting the appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint subject to
payment of costs of Rs.500/-.
Back
