The court ruled that amendments to pleadings are permissible where the foundational agreement is alleged, despite objections regarding the character of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Medhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. Taking into account the issue involved, the presence of the proforma respondent Nos.2 & 3 is not required.

3. This Court takes up the instant proceedings for disposal at the motion stage itself.

4. It is seen from the materials on record that the petitioner herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.31/2024 seeking Specific Performance of Oral Agreement dated 12.11.2022 entered into between the petitioner as plaintiff and the defendants along with consequential reliefs. The defendant No.1 who is the respondent No.1 herein had already filed the written statement. While filing the written statement, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the defendant Nos.2, 3 & 4 were nowhere related to the suit land, and accordingly, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) for striking out the names of the defendant Nos.2, 3 & 4. The said application was allowed, and therefore, the said suit seeking Specific Performance was only against the defendant No.1 who is the respondent No.1 herein.

5. The petitioner further had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint. The amendment which has been sought for has been duly mentioned at paragraph No.7 of the said application. The said application was registered and numbered as Petition No.739/24.

6. A perusal of the amendment which has been sought for reveals that the petitioner wanted to substitute the respective Dag Numbers in respect to the land which was alleged to have been agreed to be sold to the plaintiff/the petitioner.

7. Written objection there against was filed by the respondent herein stating inter-alia that the amendment which has been sought for would change the nature and character of the suit. Apart from that, it was also alleged that the plaintiff/the petitioner had resorted to all falsehood while seeking for amendment and the said aspect would be apparent from the fact that initially the suit was filed against the defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 alleging that there was an oral agreement with them, and subsequently, the defendant Nos.2, 3 & 4 were sought to be struck off on the ground that they were nowhere connected to the suit land.

8. It is further seen that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 rejected the amendment application on the ground that the amendment was being sought for actual was an amendment to the agreement and not to the pleadings. It is under such circumstances, the present application has been filed.

9. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and given an anxious consideration to their respective submissions.

10. It is relevant to take note of that the plaintiff/the petitioner had filed the suit seeking specific performance of an oral agreement in respect to the land described in Schedule-C to the plaint. The basis on which the plaintiff alleges that there is an oral agreement is by way of pleadings. This is not a case where the plaintiff had sought for amendment of the pleadings which was contrary to the written agreement. Under such circumstances, the ground on which the learned Trial Court had rejected the amendment application appears to be an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction in as much as on the basis of the pleadings, t