Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, J.
Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Shardadevi Vikramjeet Yadav – Respondent
Writ Petition No.1459 of 2019
Decided on : 05-02-2024
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Article 227 - Schedule 21, Schedule 22, Schedule 23, Schedule 24, Schedule 25 - The court allowed the amendments sought by the plaintiff to bring subsequent events on record, which took place after the filing of the suit. The court considered the significance of the proposed amendments and the need for the plaintiff to prove the same. The court also emphasized the necessity to incorporate the electricity service provider as a defendant to avoid infructuous prayers. The inconvenience caused to the defendant was to be compensated by awarding suitable costs. The petitioner challenged the order allowing the amendments, arguing that the amendments sought to introduce a new case and were mala fide. The court found that the amendments were not known and could have been known even by due diligence or after filing the written statement. The court held that the entire Chamber Summons ought to have been rejected and made the petition absolute, granting costs to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner and another party seeking a declaration and injunction. The respondent later sought amendments to the plaint, which the court allowed. The petitioner challenged the order allowing the amendments, arguing that the amendments sought to introduce a new case and were mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendments were not known and could have been known even by due diligence or after filing the written statement. The court held that the entire Chamber Summons ought to have been rejected and made the petition absolute, granting costs to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendments sought by the respondent were permissible and whether they introduced a new case or were mala fide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendments sought were not known and could have been known even by due diligence or after filing the written statement. The court found that the amendments introduced an entirely new case and were mala fide. Therefore, the court rejected the entire Chamber Summons and made the petition absolute, granting costs to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court rejected the entire Chamber Summons and made the petition absolute, granting costs to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. By this Petition, under Article 227, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 10th September 2018. By the order, the learned Judge has allowed the Chamber Summons No. 499 of 2015 that sought to amend the plaint on payment of costs.
3. To resolve the controversy, it is necessary to examine the schedule of amendments, which is annexed on page 21 of the Petition and is extracted below for convenience.
15(b) The Plaintiff says that, the Plaintiff had also purchased one more room premises from One Mr. Baburam Jayshree Yadav, on date 01/03/1995. The Plaintiff says that, Defendants No.2 has entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff for allotment of permanent rehab accommodation in respect of the said another room premises which has been purchased by the Plaintiff from the said Mr. Baburam Jayshree Yadav. The Plaintiff says that, the Defendants No.2 has entered into an agreement dated 27/09/2000 for allotment of alternate permanent accommodation in lieu of the said another room premises by allotting Flat No.302, 3rd Floor, Building No. B-3, A-Wing, lying and being situated on the plot of land bearing CTS No. 620 (pt.) of Village: Malad, Taluka: Borivali, MSD.
15(c) The Plaintiff says that, the Defendants have made attempt to dispossess the Plaintiff from the Suit Premises, forcefully without following the due process of the law and it is therefore necessary to restrain the Defendants by order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court. The Plaintiff says that, the Defendants cannot take law in their hand and dispossess the Plaintiff.
15(d) The Plaintiff says that, the Defendants have disconnected the Electricity supply to the Plaintiff in the Suit Premises. The Plaintiff says that, the Suit Premises is Transit Camp given by the Defendant No.1 and Defendants are bound to provide Electricity connection and other necessary facilities in the Transit camp. The Plaintiff says that, it is just and necessary to direct the Defendants to restore the Electricity connection to the Plaintiff in the said Suit premises being Transit camp in the otherwise event direction be given to the Electricity supplying company i.e. Reliance Energy Ltd. To give Electricity connection to the Plaintiff in the Suit Premises on the application of the Plaintiff.
2. Add the following prayers in the prayers clause after prayer (a) in the Plaint.
(aa) The Defendants be directed to restore the Electricity connection and Electricity supply in the Suit premises i.e. C-3, Building, Room/Shop No.2 also known as Shop No.17, Kanyapada, Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063;
(bb) The Defendant No.3 be directed to provide Electricity connection and Electricity supply to the Suit premises on the application of the Plaintiff.
(cc) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendants, their respective servants, agents or the either of them by injunction and order of this Hon'ble Court from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit premises i.e. C-3, Building, Room/Shop No.2 also known as Shop No.17, Kanyapada, Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063; in any manner without following the due process of law;
3. Add the Defendants named below as Defendants No.3 in the Title clause
M/s. Reliance Energy Ltd.
Near W. E. Highway, Dindoshi,
Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. ...Defendants No.3
4. In the Title clause for Defendants No.2 replaced the words “Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd.” with words “M/s. Ravi Ashish Land Developers Ltd.”
4. The learned Judge allowed the amendments on the basis that are extracted as under for better appreciat
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 ....
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Allowing amendments to a plaint requires clarity on possession claims, which should not evade established jurisdictional considerations.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are permissible if they do not change the fundamental character of the suit and aim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Amendments to plaints should be liberally allowed, provided they do not cause injustice, ensuring precise determination of legal rights in ongoing litigation.
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....
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and not inconsistent with existing pleadings. However, amendments introducing new cause....
The court can allow amendments to pleadings unless they change the fundamental nature of the suit, thus ensuring just adjudication.
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
