Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 should be liberally allowed unless they change the cause of action or cause serious injustice, focusing on the necessity for accurate description rather than altering the subject matter.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

Heard.

2. Petitioners are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 47/1 of 2020 pending on the files of learned Senior Civil Judge Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as the trial court).

3. Defendants are before this Court against the order dated 5.8.2020, passed by the learned trial Court in an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff.

4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment of plaint.

5. The facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 18.6.2020, the plaintiff filed a suit before learned trial Court with the averments that he along with other co-sharers was owner in possession of land comprised in Khata/ Khatauni Nos. 52/211, Kitas 24, total measuring 28-4 bighas, situated in Mohal Kando-Cheog, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P (for short the ‘suit land’). Defendants were strangers to the suit land. The defendants had their old house on the lower side of the suit land which was under reconstruction. In such process, defendants had indulged in acts prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff over suit land.

6. In this background, a prayer for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative mandatory injunction was made.

7. Learned trial Court issued notice to the defendants. On the first date, when the defendants appeared before the learned trial Court, an application for amendment of plaint came to be filed by the plaintiff. He sought an amendment to the effect that the suit land had been wrongly described in the original plaint and in fact suit land was comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 204/604, Khasra No. 1714, measuring 0-7 bighas situated in Mohal Kando-Cheog, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

8. Thus, plaintiff proposed amendment to the plaint as under:-

“a. Proposes to substitute “Khata Khautani No. 204/604 Khasra No. 1714 measuring 0-7 bighas” in place of “Khata Khautani No. 52/211 Kita 24 measuring 48-4 bighas” in the title, para No.1 of the plaint and prayer clause of suit and the application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC and also wherever it appears otherwise in the suit and application as description of the suit land”.

9. Though, a prayer for amendment was opposed by the defendants, however, the learned trial Court vide impugned order found merit in the application and allowed the amendment.

10. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendants has contended that the amendment as ordered by the learned trial Court amounts to change the entire subject matter of the suit. He submitted that the suit initially was for some other land and now the plaintiff by moving the amendment has sought to incorporate the cause of action with respect to some other land, which is not permissible and will amount to change in cause of action. He made reference to the contents of original plaint, wherein the plaintiff has specifically made a reference to interference being caused by the defendants over the land comprised in Khata- Khatauni No. 52/211, Kitas 24 total measuring 48-4 bighas. He also referred to the averments in the plaint, whereby the plaintiff has admitted the existence of construction of defendant’s house even prior to filing of the suit. On such premise, it has been submitted that when the plaintiff already was admitting some construction having been raised by the defendants on suit land, the suit for injunction could not have been maintained.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendants has made submission that the conduct of the plaintiff has not been bonafide. He approached the learned trial Court with wrong facts with intention to claim an interim order, which eventually was granted in his favour and is operative even till date.

12. Another submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants is that though, the plaintiff has sought amendment on the ground that he came to know about the