Back
High Court Of Delhi
OM SWARUP - Appellant
Versus
BADAN SINCH - Respondent
C.M. 2687 of 1987
Decided On : 11/09/1987
Amendment - Civil Procedure - The court allowed the petitioner to amend the plaint by incorporating an alternative plea claiming adverse possession of the land, as it did not change the relief claimed or the nature of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants claiming exclusive possession of the land. The defendants denied the arrangement/agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3. The plaintiff sought to add an alternative plea claiming adverse possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sought amendment was only an alternative plea and did not change the relief claimed or the nature of the suit. It was likely to resolve the real controversy between the parties.
Issues: The issue was whether the amendment sought for would change the nature of the prayer and the suit in its entirety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the amendment sought for was only an alternative plea and did not change the relief claimed or the nature of the suit, it deserved to be allowed.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Sub Judge, Delhi was set aside. The petitioner was allowed to amend the plaint by incorporating the alternative plea, and the respondents were awarded costs of Rs. 500.00.
( 1 ) SINCE a very short point is involved, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the revision petition itself.
( 2 ) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub Judge, Delhi dated 30th July 1987 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civif Procedure amendment of the plaint was dismissed.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being suit no. 257/82 in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction against the defendants i. e. the respondents herein claiming exclusive possession of the land in question in view of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 . In the written statement filed by the defendants, they denied having entered into any such arrangement/agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3. The plaintiff petitioner, therefore, by way of the amendment application wants to add para l4a of the plaint claiming adverse possession of the land in question as an alternative plea.
( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the amendment sought for will change the nature of the prayer as well as nature of the suit in its entirety.
( 5 ) HAVING considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides, in my opinion, since the amendment shought for is only an alternative plea which does not in any manner change the relief claimed for by the plaintiff-petitioner or the prayer made by the petitioner in the main suit for injunction and is also likely to resolve the real controversy between the parties, the same deserves to be allowed. This, of course, will not preclude the respondents-defendants from contending that relief of declaration of the plaintiff as Bhumidar cannot be granted by the court trying the suit.
( 6 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30th July 1987 of the Sub Judge, Delhi is set aside. The petitioner will be allowed to amend the plaint by incorporating para l4a in the plaint. The respondents will be paid costs of Rs. 500. 00.
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
