1. In a suit for the grant of perpetual / prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking permission to amend the suit so as to incorporate the prayer for possession of the suit property and the grounds thereof in the plaint. It was stated in the application that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 7.8.1982 with the prayer as mentioned hereinabove and by asserting that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff also filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction in which notice was issued to the defendants for their objections and the date was fixed on 19.8:1982 when Defendants 1,2,3, and 5 appeared in the court and were provided with the copies of the application. The case was adjourned to 13.9.1982 but the -Pendants 1 to 7 are alleged to have forcibly taken the possession of the suit property at 6 P.M. on 19.8 1982, necessitating the filing of the application for amendment of the plaint. The application was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property and wanted to change the nature of the suit by incorporating an inconsistent plea.

2. The trial court held that the application was not bonafide, proposed amendment would prejudice the defendants by changing the nature of the suit and on the basis of the judgment produced by the counsel of the defendants, ultimately dismissed the application Aggrieved by order of the application, the present revision petition has been filed before this court

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

4. The purpose and object of 0.6 R. 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and the Hon™ble Supreme Court of India. It was held in AIR 1967 SC 96, AIR 1974 SC 1126, AIR 1976 SC 484, that the object of the rule was to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes, by allowing the amendment of the pleadings in the appropriate cases. The exercise of such far-reaching discretionary power is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater has to be the care circumspection on the part of the court. On the basis of the different judgments it is settled that the following principles should be kept in mind in dealing with the applications for amendment of the pleadings :

i) All amendments should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real contoversery in the suit;

ii) the proposed amendment should not alter and be a substitute of the cause of action on the basis of which the original list was raised;

iii) inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment:

iv) proposed amendments should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by means of costs;

v) amendment of a claim or relief barred by time should not be allowed;

vi) no amendment should be allowed which amounts to or results in defeating a legal right a accrued to the opposite party on account of lapse of time;

vii) no party should suffer on account of the technicalities of law and the amendments should be allowed to minimize the litigation between the parties;

viii) the delay in filing the petitions for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs;

ix) error or mistake which if not fraudulent should not be made on ground for rejecting the application for amendments of pleadings,

5. It is true that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. The circumstances under which the prayer for amendme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document