Procedural rules should not obstruct justice; amendments to plaints should be allowed to ensure real controversies are addressed, especially when no vested rights have accrued to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.07.2017, passed by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Supaul in Title Suit No. 29 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s petition dated 30.01.2017 filed under Section 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30.09.2014, the plaintiff, who is petitioner in the present case, filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment in the plaint due to subsequent event. Vide order dated 17.09.2015, the amendment petition of the plaintiff was allowed. But, unfortunately the order of amendment could not be carried out in the plaint by the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 24.02.2016, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code seeking extension of time for allowing him to carry out the order of amendment passed on 17.09.2015. The learned trial court allowed the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code on 26.04.2016 at the cost of Rs. 100/-. Still, the amendment could not be carried out in the plaint by the plaintiff. Afterwards, on 30.01.2017, the plaintiff again filed a petition under Section 148 and 151 of the Code seeking permission of the trial court to carry out the amendment for which order has already been passed on 17.09.2015. However, the said petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 19.07.2017, which is under challenge before this Court in the present petition.

Learned counsel further submits that no doubt there has been delay and laches on part of the petitioner but the petitioner has explained the circumstances under which the amendment could not be carried out in the plaint. The petitioner is a poor person and has to go outside the State for earning his livelihood and for this reason, the petitioner could not carry out the amendment in the plaint in terms of order dated 17.09.2015. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is not allowed to carry out the amendment, the subsequent event could not be incorporated in the plaint and the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced on this account. Further the subsequent event was with regard to dispossession from the property and hence in case of refusal to carry out amendment relief of recovery of possession would be barred.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 12 vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no satisfactory explanation has been given for not carrying out the amendment in the plaint in terms of order dated 17.09.2015. Learned counsel further submits that delay and laches on part of the petitioner should not be condoned as due to the negligent approach of the petitioner, the matter has been pending since year 2009.

5. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioner is completely at fault in not carrying out the amendment in terms of order dated 17.09.2015. Order VI Rule 18 of the Code provides that if no time is prescribed, any amendment should be carried out within fourteen days from the date of the order. It appears the petitioner moved before the learned trial court, firstly under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code and thereafter, under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code and he has been unsuccessful while moving his second petition. However, considering the fact that the endeavour of the court should be towards the determination of real controversy between the parties and procedural law should not be allowed to hamper the course of justice, in case no vested rights have been accrued in favour of the other side, the trial court should normally allow such petition.

6. Therefore, without further going into the f