Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
Mr. Jayvant S. Shah – Appellant
Versus
Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited – Respondent
Writ Petition No.9660 of 2022
Decided on : 08-06-2023
Amendment - Bonafide Requirement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - [BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT] - [Amendment of Plaint] - [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are tenants of the Respondent No.1-Bank in a suit for eviction. The Respondent No.1-Bank sought to amend the plaint to include subsequent events regarding the surrender of premises by the defendants. The Trial Court rejected the amendment application, but the Appellate Bench allowed it. The petitioners challenged the Appellate Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amendments sought by the Respondent No.1-Bank were necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and did not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court also noted that the amendments were part of the evidence since 2008 and did not introduce a new case or change the fundamental character of the suit. The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Appellate Court's decision to allow the amendment.
Issues: Whether the amendments sought by the Respondent No.1-Bank were necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and whether they caused injustice or prejudice to the other side.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real controversy between the parties, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court also emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided and all amendments necessary for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy should be allowed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision to allow the amendment. The Court clarified that it had not given any finding on the merits of the suit, leaving all contentions/issues on the merits of the suit to be decided at the trial of the suit.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 7th July, 2022 passed in Revision Application No.53 of 2022 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of the Small Causes at Mumbai.
2. The petitioners are tenants of the Respondent No.1-Bank, (Original Plaintiff) in the RAE Suit No.1794/5544 of 1986 (the “said suit”), in respect of the premises in the building at 89, Mohammed Ali Road, Mumbai 400 003 (the “said property”).
3. The Respondent No.1-Bank had filed the said suit against Shri. Jagdish Savailal Sanghavi and ors., the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 and the petitioners and their respective Predecessors-in-title and other Respondents seeking Decree of Eviction in respect of the suit premises viz, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the said property, inter-alia, on the ground of bonafide requirement.
4. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the said suit, in or about May 1987, the original Defendants No.1, 2 and 3 being the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 (deleted since deceased) surrendered vacant possession of the 2nd and 3rd floors of the suit premises and also relinquished some portion in respect of the 1st floor of the suit premises to the Respondent No.1-Bank, in consideration of accepting smaller alternate premises on the 1st floor of the said building and for certain compensation.
5. The possession of the 2nd and 3rd floors was acquired by the Respondent No.1-Bank in May 1987. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the same, Respondent No.1 did not amend the plaint and continued the suit against the Defendants.
6. The Defendants filed their respective written statements. That issues were framed on 14th May, 1999, and even on the date of the framing of the issues, the suit premises were described in the plaint as comprising 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the said property. That, additional issues were framed on 23rd June, 2008, and even on the date of framing of the additional issues, the suit premises were described as consisting of 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the said property.
7. The Respondent No.1-Bank filed evidence of PW-1 on 10th October, 2008 with the list of documents and an order was passed on the said documents on 12th August, 2009. The PW-1 was cross-examined from 10th September, 2009 to 3rd September, 2011.
8. While the petitioners’ evidence was in progress, the Respondent No.1-Bank filed application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating therein paragraph 2A for amendment of prayer clause (a) to the plaint. The said amendment was carried out on 12th January, 2016. By the said amendment the Plaintiffs added paragraph 2A and it is submitted that for the first time it was disclosed that in May-1987 the Defendants No.2 and 3 had surrendered the vacant possession of the 2nd and 3rd floors of the subject building/said property and relinquished the tenancy rights in respect of the first floor without handing over possession of the 1st floor and in consideration of accepting a smaller premises on the first floor of the said building and certain compensation. The said paragraph 2A is usefully quoted as under :-
9. By the said amendment the Respondent No.1-Bank also confined their prayer for decree of possession against the petitioners in respect of the entire first floor only.
10. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1-Bank did not continue with the cross-
Amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real controversy between the parties, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. A hyper-technical....
The Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment of pleadings if it is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and does not cause prejudice to the other side. Delay in fi....
Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify absence of material relevant in plaint.
The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be rejected if it's belated and lacks due diligence, especially when it does not materially impact the bona fide requirement.
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Legal heirs in eviction proceedings cannot introduce new inconsistent requirements post-decision of the original cause, as they are bound by the pleadings of their predecessor.
The amendments to a plaint must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and should not introduce a new case or be mala fide. Amendments should be allowed if ....
Bona fide requirement of landlord must be assessed based on actual need at the time of filing; subsequent events do not overshadow genuine intent if prior evidence supports the claim.
Courts cannot examine merits while deciding plaint amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Article 227 does not permit High Courts to reassess evidence or interfere with discretionary orders absent jur....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
