An amendment to a plaint that introduces an inconsistent and totally different cause of action is not allowable, but an amendment that introduces an alternative prayer for relief is allowable.

ORDER :- This revision-petition is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, blowing an application of the respondent, for amending the plaint.

2. The respondent had instituted it suit, against the petitioners, for his issue of a mandatory injunction The allegations, in the suit, were that the property, in suit belonged to the Union of India, that the respondent had purchased the property at an auction sale, that the petitioners were the licensees of the properly and that the license of the petitioners determined on 23-3-1964 but they had not vacated the property. The respondent prayed for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to remove their goods, luggage and persons from the property and restraining them from interfering with the possession of the respondent.

3. The petitioners contested the suit, on various grounds. It is not necessary, for the decision of the revision petition, to set out all those grounds. Suffice it to say that the petitioners denied that the property belonged to the Union of India or that they were mere licensees. The petitioners pleaded that they were in possession of the property as tenants on the basis of a lease granted by the real owner of the property, Hakumat Khan. The petitioners had also taken up preliminary objections, against the maintainability of the suit. One of the preliminary objections was that the respondent being, admittedly, out of possession, was not entitled to maintain a suit for injunction, without suing for possession.

4. The written statement was filed, in the suit, on 13-7-1964. On 1-8-1964, an application, for amending the plaint, was put in, on behalf of the respondent. The amendment was sought in the relief clause. The amendment sought was "even in alternative, if the plaintiff fails to prove that the defendants are licensees, then as the defendants are in possession of the suit property without any right, title or interest, then a decree of possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs". It was alleged, in the application, that the aforesaid amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and would avoid multiplicity of litigation.

5. The application for amendment was opposed, on behalf of the petitioners. It was pleaded that the application was not made bona fide, that the amendment would introduce an inconsistent and totally different cause of action and that the amendment in the relief clause could not be allowed its the plaint did not disclose any cause of action upon the basis of which the relief sought could be granted.

6. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge allowed the application for amendment.

7. The petitioners have come up in revision against the order allowing amendment. The principles, with respect to the amendment of pleadings, are well settled. It was observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, AIR 1922 PC 249 that :

"All rules of Courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should, be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always he liberally exercised but none the less no power has been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by amendment, the subject matter of the suit."

8. Again, it was laid down in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil (S) AIR 1957 SC 363 that :

"All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot he placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendm