Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Sarkar, J.
Chandeshwar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayan Jee and others – Opposite Parties
CO 748 of 2023
Decided On : 04-08-2023
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - EVICTION SUIT - ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR EVICTION - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING AND REBUILDING - LIMITATION - WHETHER AMENDMENT INTRODUCES NEW CAUSE OF ACTION - WHETHER AMENDMENT IS PERMISSIBLE - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 67 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for eviction filed on grounds of subletting, default in payment of rent, and damage to the property, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include an additional ground for eviction, namely, reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding over the suit property. The defendant challenged the amendment on the grounds of delay, change in the nature and character of the suit, and introduction of a time-barred claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment was permissible and did not introduce a new cause of action or a new claim. The suit was filed within the period of limitation, and the subsequent amendment was not a new cause of action. The court also held that the question of introduction of a time-barred claim did not arise as the amendment was introduced in a pending suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of the plaint to include an additional ground for eviction was permissible. 2. Whether the amendment introduced a new cause of action or a new claim. 3. Whether the amendment was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment was permissible as it did not change the nature and character of the suit or take away any accrued right of the defendant. There was neither withdrawal of admission nor introduction of contradictory pleas. 2. The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action or a new claim as the cause of action was for eviction of the tenant and recovery of khas possession, and the reliefs claimed were also not altered. 3. The court held that the amendment was not barred by limitation as the suit for eviction had already been filed within time and introduction of an additional ground of eviction by way of an amendment would not amount to introducing a new claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the plaint and directed the plaintiffs to file the amended plaint within two weeks from the date of the order. The defendant was granted four weeks from the date of receipt of the amended plaint to file an additional written statement.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Sarkar, J.
1. This revisional application has been filed challenging the order dated January 24, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No.308 of 2004.
2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an application for amendment of the plaint.
3. The defendant challenged the said order on the following grounds:-
(b) The amendment was inordinately delayed. The same has been filed after almost 18 years from the date of filing of the suit.
(c) The learned court below mechanically allowed the amendment without giving any reasons.
(d) The amendment was barred by law.
(e) The proposed amendment was for inclusion of an additional ground for eviction, namely, reasonable requirement for building and re-building over the suit property. This was a new cause of action.
(f) Such new cause of action would substantially alter the nature and character of the suit. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of subletting, default and damage to the property. By incorporating the ground of reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding, the plaintiff sought to introduce a time-barred claim.
4. Mr. Tewari, learned advocate for the petitioner/defendant, submitted that as the tenancy was terminated with effect from October 31, 2002, the amendment ought to have been brought within 12 years from the termination of the tenancy. As per the provisions of Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the additional ground was barred. According to Mr. Tewari, as a fresh suit for eviction could not have been brought, the amendment should not have been allowed. In this case, the new ground for eviction was brought after 18 years and as such a time barred pleading, could not be brought in by way of an amendment.
5. Learned advocate relied on the decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1128. According to Mr. Tewari, Their Lordships were of the opinion that although amendments should be liberally allowed, a time-barred claim could not be introduced by way of an amendment. The relevant paragraph which was cited by Mr. Tewari, is quoted below:-
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration”
6. Further reliance was also placed on the decision of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 in support of the contention that amendment to a plaint could not be allowed, if the cause of action was time barred. The relevant paragraph which was cited by Mr. Tewari is quoted below:-
63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.”
7. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned advocate for the opposite parties, submitted that the amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit. In the notice to quit, the ground of re- bui
An amendment to a plaint to include an additional ground for eviction in a pending suit is permissible if it does not change the nature and character of the suit, introduce a new cause of action, or ....
Amendments to pleadings must not change the nature of the suit and should be necessary for determining the real controversy, with oversight not being a valid ground for delay.
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Point of Law : Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend ....
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
A landlord may amend grounds for eviction of a tenant, including reasonable requirement, even post-moratorium, as long as one ground is proven to validate the eviction decree.
Amendment of written statements post-trial commencement is not permissible if it contradicts prior admissions regarding landlord-tenant relationships.
Amendments to plaints should be liberally allowed, provided they do not cause injustice, ensuring precise determination of legal rights in ongoing litigation.
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
