Point of Law: Amendment of plaint - Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, supervisory jurisdiction of this court invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners for quashment of order dated 31.12.2020 (for short impugned order) passed by the court of Munsiff, Sogam (hereinafter referred to as trial court), whereby an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff respondent herein before the trial court has been allowed.

2. The petition is filed on the premise that the petitioners and respondent herein being related as brothers inherited the estate of father after his death as his legal heirs qua their respective shares which had accrued to them after the father during his lifetime partitioned the said estate/property. The respondent herein is stated to have been putting up as Khana Damad of one Ghulam Ahmad Mir son of Abdul Aziz Mir, having married his Khana Nisheen daughter Roshni Begum.

3. It is being stated that a time-barred suit came to be filed by the respondent herein for declaration, partition and permanent injunction before the trial court against the petitioners herein seeking therein a preliminary decree for partition, declaration and injunction. It is being stated that an exparte interim order came to be passed by the trial court on 24.7.2019 restraining the non-applicants petitioners herein from changing the nature of the suit property or creating any third party interest. It is being stated that upon entering appearance before the trial court, the petitioners herein filed written statement as also objections in opposition to the suit and application for interim relief. It is being further stated that an application came to be filed by the plaintiff respondent herein under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, seeking amendment of the plaint and the court below is stated to have allowed the said application permitting the plaintiff respondent herein to amend the suit pursuant to the impugned order.

4. The impugned order is challenged inter alia on the grounds that the same is illegal and bad in law inasmuch as it has been passed without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court is stated to have unfairly sided with the plaintiff respondent herein by allowing amendment of his plaint. The amendment sought by the plaintiff respondent herein and allowed by the trial court is stated to be the result of an afterthought in that the plaintiff respondent herein had no impediment to include the portion of the property sought to be included in the suit by way of amendment. The amendment sought and granted by the trial court is stated to be neither in the interest of law nor justice, but aimed to prevent the petitioners herein from constructing a residential house on the land in question. The amendment granted is stated to have changed the whole nature of the litigation initiated by the plaintiff respondent herein against the petitioners and a new cause of action is stated to have been introduced which is not permissible under law. The amendment is stated to have caused serious injustice to the petitioners herein as the amendment sought was neither necessary nor warranted.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter.

6. Before adverting to the controversy involved in the petition, it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer to the nature, scope and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which provides that courts may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his plaint in such manner and on such terms as may be just and that such amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The provisions for the amendment of the pleadings have been held by the courts to be intended to promote the ends of justice and not for defeating them.

7. It is on the touchstone of the aforesaid scheme provided under CPC, the impugned order may be analyzed.

8. Perusal of the record and