Courts must consider whether allowing an amendment to the pleadings will change the nature of the suit and must ensure that the dispute pending between the parties in the suit will not be altered by the proposed amendment.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendant challenging the order dated 11th October, 2019, whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Rahul Agarwal submitted that the petitioners, by seeking amendment in the written statement, had only wanted to bring the subsequent facts, which had come into existence after filing of earlier written statement.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners wanted to bring on record the fact of registered sale deed, executed in favour of the petitioners after purchasing the property from one of the co-sharer.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application by observing that nature of the suit will be changed.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that amendment in the pleadings is required to be allowed by the Courts, if such amendment intends to decide the main controversy. Learned counsel further submitted that the Courts have to be liberal in allowing the amendments, as multiplicity of the litigation is avoided by bringing the subsequent facts on record.

6. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamd (2008 Lawsuit (SC) 75), Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2832) as well as the order passed by this Court in the case of Indu Sharma Vs. Ramchandra (2019(1) CIVCC 623).

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case.

8. This Court finds that the Court below, while passing the order, has come to the conclusion that the suit is in respect of tenancy rights of the parties. The Court below has further observed that by permitting such amendment of establishing right to hold the property as owner of the property, will change the nature of the suit.

9. This Court finds that admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2010 and further, the petitioners had filed the written statement. The partition of the property during pendency of the suit and purchasing the same property from one of the co-sharer and establishing rights of the petitioners to hold the property as owner of the property, cannot be a subject matter or an issue before the Court below in a dispute between the landlord and tenant.

10. As regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the subsequent developments are required to be taken on record by way of amendment, this Court finds that at first blush, the proposition seems to be absolutely correct, however, the Court has to consider whether the dispute, which is pending between the parties in the suit, will require adjudication or it will change the nature of the suit by way of amendment, which is sought by a party.

11. This Court finds that if the petitioners have to establish their ownership over the disputed property, which is presently on rent as a tenant in favour of the petitioners, the same issue cannot be decided in the pending suit, filed by the landlord against the petitioners for eviction of the property. The petitioners may have their independent right to claim on the basis of sale deed, however, permitting the petitioners to raise the issue of ownership in the suit of eviction, will completely change the nature of suit.

12. This Court finds that the Court below has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. Hence, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order.

13.The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.