An amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be disallowed if it changes the nature of the suit or introduces an entirely new cause of action foreign to the original plaint, even if aimed at avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

The order granting leave to amend the suit is questioned in these proceedings on the ground that the grant of leave to amend the pleadings changes the character of the suit and the cause of action pleaded in the suit.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition is as follows:-

OS.No.30 of 2023 was instituted by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking to declare a co-option of defendants 10 to 25 to the existing governing body of the petitioner/first defendant society in the meeting held on 21.05.2023 as illegal, void and contrary to the Rules. A consequential prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 10 to 25 not to act as the members of the governing body of petitioner/first defendant society was also sought for. The plaint discloses that the cause of action of the suit arose on 21.05.2023 the date on which the extraordinary governing meeting was unlawfully convened and it was decided to co-opt defendants 10 to 25 as the members of the petitioner/first defendant society. Though interim in nature, an order was passed in I.A.No.2//2023 on 21.08.2023, as evident from Ext.P2, granting the relief sought for in the suit itself. A clarification was attempted on the side of the petitioner society stating that the interim order is causing prejudice to them inasmuch as they have been prevented from conducting an election to the governing body of the society. The request was accepted under Ext.P5 and the interim order passed under Ext.P2 was clarified. It was ordered that the interim order shall not take away the rights of the society to elect new governing body members as per the bye-laws. It was further ordered that the petitioner would be at liberty to conduct elections to the office bearers and the Managing Committee once the governing members are elected as per the bye-laws. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 29.09.2023 proposing to conduct an election on 28.10.2023, as evident from Ext.P4. It is an admitted case that the election was conducted on 28.10.2023. Immediately thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.28/2023 in OS No.30/2023 seeking amendment of the claim by raising a challenge to the election conducted on 28.10.2023 wherein defendants 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22 and 24 were elected to the governing body of the society. The petitioner resisted this application by filing a counter affidavit stating that the cause of action pleaded in the suit as well as in the present amendment petition is entirely different and thus cannot be granted. It is further contended that the proposed amendment will alter the character and nature of the suit and will cause prejudice to the respondents. By Ext.P7 order, the Sub Court, Hosdurg allowed Ext.P5(a) application on the ground that if the amendment is not granted, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. While allowing the application, the Sub Court observed that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

3. Heard Shri. Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Sri. Sukarnan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14 and 25.

4. Shri Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the principles applying grant of amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been construed liberally, such liberal construction cannot outweigh the statutory inhibition or overreach the statutory boundaries placed on such power. The learned counsel fu