IMPORTANT POINT
The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by narrow or technical limitations. Amendments are generally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations, and the court should not adopt a hyper-technical approach in deciding such prayers.

JUDGMENT :

By way of present Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.07.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div.-XIV, Ranchi in Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022, arising out of Original Suit No. 125 of 2012, whereby the learned Court below has illegally and erroneously rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint in order to incorporate subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the above suit.

2. It has been submitted by Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 125 of 2012 against the defendants-respondents praying therein a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 16.03.2009, in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Subsequently, the nomenclature of the said title suit has been converted into Original Suit No. 125 of 2012.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the defendants-respondents executed a written agreement dated 16.03.2009 in favour of plaintiff-petitioner for sale of lands measuring 8 kathas 73/4 chataks along with building situated over M.S. Plot No. 1582, R.S. Plot No. 201 of Khata No. 52 under Khewat No. 2, situated within Ward No. II of Ranchi Municipal Corporation at Upper Bazar, Ranchi, and the plaintiff-petitioner paid a total sum of Rs.25,50,000/- as advance for the purchase of said property. It is further submitted that the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and 9 to 16 have filed separate joint written statement and they have admitted the execution of the written agreement dated 16.03.2009 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property and also admitted the payment of advance amount of Rs.25,50,000/-.

4. However, during the pendency of the above suit, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,11,000/- to defendant No. 4 through cheque and cash and as such, the plaintiff filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022, under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint in order to incorporate the subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the above suit. The defendants filed rejoinder to the said application stating therein that the application filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The learned Court below without properly considering the materials on record and the relevant provisions of law has illegally rejected the petition being Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is very much necessary for real adjudication of the lis between the parties and the same would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Court below has misconstrued the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 CPC while rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff for grant of leave to amend the plaint in order to incorporate subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel further argues that the proposed amendment is subsequent fact relating to payment of part consideration amount to the defendants during the pendency of the above suit and the impugned order rejecting the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is wholly perverse and the same is against the mandate of law. Learned counsel further argues that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of suit or the same would cause any prejudice to the defendants. Learned counsel further argues that it is settled mandate of law that evidence beyond pleading cannot be admitted in evidence nor the same would be considered while adjudicating the lis, the impugned order passed by learned Court below