2022 Supreme(SC) 864

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022, SLP (C) No. 22443 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Amendment of plaint – Where aspect of delay is arguable, prayer for amendment could be allowed and issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
(2) Amendment of written statement – Principles applicable to amendments of plaint are equally applicable to amendments of written statements – Courts are more generous in allowing amendment of written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event.
(3) Power to grant alternate relief – Damages are now available only in addition to specific performance and not in lieu thereof.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – Court must be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment, if court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury – There is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed – It is always open to court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really sub-serve ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation – Power to allow an amendment is wide and may be appropriately exercised at any stage in interests of justice, notwithstanding law of limitation – Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow prayer – Where aspect of delay is arguable, prayer for amendment could be allowed and issue of limitation framed separately for decision – Where amendment changes nature of suit or cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to case set up in plaint, amendment must be disallowed – Where, however, amendment sought is only with respect to relief in plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in plaint, ordinarily, amendment is required to be allowed – Where amendment is sought before commencement of trial, court is required to be liberal in its approach. (Paras 19, 23 and 70)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of written statement – Principles applicable to amendments of plaint are equally applicable to amendments of written statements – Courts are more generous in allowing amendment of written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event – Defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of plaintiff is not withdrawn – All amendments of pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of real controversies in suit provided proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which original lis was raised or defence taken – Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to pleadings – Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to other side which cannot be compensated by costs – No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating a legal right accruing to opposite party on account of lapse of time – Delay in filing application for amendment of pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting application for amendment of plaint or written statement – Every case and every application for amendment has to be tested in applicable facts and circumstances of case. (Paras 25, 26 and 70)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order II Rule 2 – Bar on subsequent suit – Bar of Order II Rule 2 of CPC applies only to subsequent suits – If two suits and relief claimed therein are based on same cause of action then subsequent suit will become barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. (Paras 49, 50 and 70)

(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 21 and 22 – Power to grant alternate relief – Plaintiff who claims specific performance of a contract for transfer of immovable property, may in an appropriate case ask for possession, partition and separate possession of property, in addition to specific performance – Plaintiff may also claim any other relief including refund of earnest money or deposit paid, in case claim for specific performance is refused – Damages are now available only in addition to specific performance and not in lieu thereof. (Paras 58 and 59)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit filed by respondents herein (original plaintiffs) for the specific performance of contract based on an agreement dated 08.06.1979 and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Chamber Summons was allowed by the High Court at the instance of the plaintiffs, permitting the plaintiffs to amend plaint. The order passed by the High Court in the Chamber Summons came to be affirmed by a Division Bench in the Appeal [L] No. 499 of 2018. The High Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, seeking to enhance the amount towards the alternative claim for damages.

Findings of Court:

Provision which empowers the court in its discretion to permit a party to amend his pleadings, was already on the statute book, when the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was enacted. It can, therefore, be presumed that when the latter legislation was on the anvil, the Parliament was aware of this power of the court to permit amendment of pleadings. Therefore, it cannot be successfully urged that a suit for specific performance falling under the provisions of the Act, 1963 would not be governed by the provisions of the CPC.

Result : Appeal dismissed.