Back
1978 Supreme(Goa) 1
Goa High Court
K. M. MISHRA, ADDL. J.C.
Bill Roynald Carneiro - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Anunciacao DSouza Carneiro - Respondents
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 138 of 1976
Decided On : 2 January 1978
Y.H. Kadam, for Applicant; R.R. Kolwalkar, for Respondent.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if they do not work injustice to the other side and are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Headnote:
AMENDMENTS - CIVIL REVISION - The court allowed amendments to the plaint, finding that they did not change the nature of the suit and were necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought amendments to the plaint, which were allowed by the trial judge. The defendant raised objections related to the nature and character of the suit and the lack of clarity in the proposed amendments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendments did not change the nature of the suit and were formal in nature. It also determined that the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the amendments despite the lack of clarity in the copy provided.
Issues: The issues raised included the nature and character of the proposed amendments and the clarity of the information provided to the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles stating that amendments should be allowed if they do not work injustice to the other side and are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It also emphasized that amendments cannot be refused merely because of mistake, negligence, or inadvertence.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision was dismissed, and the court held that the amendments were allowed after thorough examination and hearing of arguments, and the defendant had sufficient opportunity to understand the amendments.
ORDER :- This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 9th Nov., 1976 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, by which certain amendments to the plaint were allowed. The only point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether the order allowing the amendments is tenable in law.
2. The circumstances under which the amendments were sought for and allowed may be seen from an order dated 28th July, 1976 (Exh. 26) placed at page 55 of the lower Court record. It would appear from the said order that two preliminary issues were dealt with in the same order. Both the issues related to the question whether the plaint presented and signed by Anunciacao DSouza was proper and valid. The suit property admittedly belongs to one Anna Ditosa Eufemia DSouza. Smt Anunciacao DSouza Carneiro filed the suit as constituted attorney of Inacio Caetano DSouza who is the brother of the real owner of the suit field. On examination it was found that she could not maintain the suit as power of attorney of Inacio Caetano DSouza. The Court therefore directed that the defect noticed be remedied. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the plaintiff came up with a petition for amendment. The proposed amendment was opposed and the learned trial Judge after considering the objection raised by the defendant finally passed the impugned order allowing the amendment. The only ground urged and met by the trial Court in his order in question related to the objection that the amendment if allowed would change the nature and character of the suit.
3. Two points are raised before me in support of the Revision Petition. One is the one already urged and rejected by the trial Court and the other is that the petition of amendment was prepared or drawn up in such a manner that the defendant had no means to know what exactly the amendments were and could not therefore take all possible objections.
4. Both the objections are without any substance. It will be noticed that the defect pointed out by the Court was only in respect of the question whether Mrs. Anunciacao DSouza could sign and file the plaint in the form it was presented. Pursuant to the said order, the plaintiff came up with a petition for amendment without making any change in the cause of action or the statement of facts which gave rise to the cause of action for filing the suit. Therefore there was no change in the nature of the suit by the proposed amendment, and the amendments appear to be formal in nature.
5. As regards the second objection it would be seen that in the copy made over to the defendant the portion to be amended was not shown in the red ink, though it was stated to be so shown in the original petition presented to the Court. This might not have enabled the defendant to know what portion of the plaint would be amended. But it would appear that the matter was thoroughly argued before the trial Judge and I do not think the learned Counsel for the defendant would have advanced his argument without knowing the expressions to be introduced by way of amendment into the plaint. It cannot therefore be said that it is a case where particulars of amendment were not furnished. In this view of the matter the case of Bachittar Singh v. Central Labour Court, Jullundur reported in AIR 1969 Punj 187 cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application.
6. Before parting with the case I would like to point out the enunciation of Law by Supreme Court regarding circumstances under which amendments should be granted. The cases are reported in AIR 1957 SC 363 (Pirgonda Hongonda v. Kalgonda Shidgonda) and the other one is in the case of AIR 1969 SC 1267 (Jai Jai Ram Monohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon). Amendments are generally allowed if two conditions are satisfied, the conditions being that it is not working injustice to the other side and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. An applicati
