The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for allowing or rejecting amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the necessity, bona fide nature, and prejudice to the other party.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant before the learned Trial Court against the order dated 10th March, 2021, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.

2. Mr. Vikas Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order does not consider whether the amendments sought were necessary for the just disposal of the case. It was submitted that the pleas were not available to the petitioner till the decision of this Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, where the court held that the husband was a necessary party to any suit filed by his parents in respect of the property in which the estranged wife was residing.

3. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, to submit that the amendments sought by the petitioner were those of the nature that were to be allowed. It was also submitted that issues have not been framed so far and that trial has not commenced. It was also submitted that amendments were also with reference to the claim of the respondent that she had become the absolute owner of the suit property on account of a gift deed, but in fact there was only a Deed of declaration, and therefore, the petitioner had sought to challenge the claim of absolute ownership set up by the respondent. It was further submitted that the merits of the averments or the evidentiary value of the documents sought to be brought on record by the petitioner, were not to be considered at the time when the court was only considering the application seeking amendment. The learned counsel also pointed out that an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was also pending, whereby the petitioner had sought the impleadment of the husband in the suit. The amendment sought was also to incorporate the pleas relating to the husband. Thus, it was prayed that the amendment be allowed.

4. Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the suit was one for possession filed by the Mother-in-law against her daughter -in-law. Certain defenses have been taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed way back in October, 2019. The respondent was relying on a registered gift deed which the petitioner could not challenge. Based on the judgment of this court in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, when an application had been moved by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, for provision of an alternate residence to the petitioner, the present application for amendment was moved. Thus it was submitted that the application was malafide and was rightly dismissed.

5. The Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders (supra) had discussed in detail as to the factors that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with an application for amendments. These have been set out in para 63 as under :

"Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments

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.

6. The impugned order