Report No. 163
Illustrative Cases as to Amendment
In order-to illustrate the points made above more concretely, a few instances, culled out from reported decisions, are noted below:
(i) Plaintiff sued for partition and accounts. Defendant objected, that the suit should have been for dissolution of partnership and accounts. Amendment of the plaint to that effect was allowed (even at the appellate stage), as it was based on the pleadings and evidence of the defendant himself.
K. Krishna Rao v. K. Babjee Rao, AIR 1991 Al' 232 (DB).
(ii) Amendment of the plaint may be more readily granted, if the necessary materials are already on record.
Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 551.
(iii) Plaint did not give the valuation for court fees. Amendment was allowed, to permit the plaintiff to add such valuation.
Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245.
(iv) Plaintiff sued in a court for an amount beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. He wished to relinquish a part of his claim, in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the court. It was allowed.
Durga Prasad v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1950 Raj 57.
Compare Shobha Venkat Rao v. K.R. Mahale, AIR 1969 Born 370.
[It may be mentioned that Order 2, rule 2(2) and Order 23, rule 1 of the Code permit the plaintiff to abandon or relinquish a part of the claim].
(v) In considering the prayer for amendment, subsequent events can be taken into account.
Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain, AIR 1985 SC 871: (1984) 3 SCC 382; Brijlal v. Hotel Neelam, AIR 1983 Born 432.
(vi) Amendment of the plaint may be necessitated by intervening events, where the changed circumstances give rise to a new cause of action: (Of course, after such amendment, the defendant has to be allowed opportunity to meet the amended plaint).
R. Durgaraju v. Venkataraju, AIR 1979 AP 14; Prem Lal v. Jadav Chandra, AIR 1979 Raj 44; Satish Chandra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 Cal 278.
(vii) Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance failed to make an avertment of his own readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required by section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963. Amendment was allowed to add this averment. (It did not introduce any new cause of action).
Gajanan Jalkishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166.
(viii) In a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1953, a prayer for seeking judicial separation (as an alternative) was allowed to be added, by way of amendment.
Satyamma v. Gopala Reddy, AIR 1961 AP 122.
(ix) A suit was filed to annul a marriage, but the date of the marriage was left out, by slip. Amendment to add the date of marriage was allowed, being bona fide mistake and essentially required to bring the facts on record. Mandakini v. Chandrasen, AIR 1986 Born 172.
(x) Amendment of the plaint may be allowed to permit withdrawal of an admission made by the plaintiff in the plaint (under a misconception).
Panchdeo Narain v. Jyoti Sahay, 1984 Suppl SCC 594.
As to withdrawal of admission made in the written statement compare-Mahendra Radio & Telivision v. State Bank of India, AIR 1988 All 257.
(xi) An amendment of the plaint to add the relief of possession should be allowed, if no grave prejudice is caused to the defendant. Haridas v. Godrej Rustom, AIR 1983 SC 319.
Views are invited on the proposal in question, in the light of the above legal position.