Amendment applications regarding new causes of action must comply with Section 80 of C.P.C., and due diligence is required; modifications that change the nature of the case are impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Chand, J.)

The instant C.M.P. has been directed on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2019 (Smt. Arti Gupta vs. Civil Surgeon, Hazaribag & Anr.) by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag whereby the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has instituted the suit for declaration of title in regard to the property in question in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Hazaribag which was registered as Suit No. 169 of 2012. That very suit was dismissed on 02.04.2019.

3. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment dated 02.04.2019, the Title Appeal No. 89 of 2019(Arti Gupta vs. Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital & Other) which is pending in the Court of District Judge-IV, Hazaribag. In that Appeal the petitioner/plaintiff had preferred an Amendment Application to amend the pleadings of the plaint and that Amendment Application was rejected by the learned Court of Additional District Judge-IV, Hazaribag vide order dated 08.02.2024.

4. It has been further submitted that the very Amendment Application of the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected on the ground that there was no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff to seek the amendment in the plaint while he had the thorough knowledge of the facts which he wanted to insert in the plaint.

4.1 Further the Amendment Application has also been rejected on this ground that same was moved very belated at the stage of appeal while after conclusion of evidence the suit of the plaintiff was also dismissed. The said finding of the learned Trial Court is perverse and since the amendment can be moved at any stage which may also be moved at the stage of appeal as well which is in continuation of the suit. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case law ‘Pankaja and Another vs. Yellappa (D) by Lrs and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 4983-4984 of 2004 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3089-3090 of 2004) decided on 05.08.2004; Mahila Ramkali Devi and others vs. Nandram (D) Thr. LRs. and others (Civil Appeal No. 2366 of 2010 Judgment dated 14 May, 2015; Surendra Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh (Civil Appeal No. 6400 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) 30468 of 2008) Judgment dated 18.09.2009.

5. Per contra, the learned A.A.G.-IA vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the suit of plaintiff was for simple declaration of title in regard to the property in question. In that suit the plaintiff was very much aware that on the land in question Trauma Centre had been erected. In that suit the plaintiff in evidence has admitted that Trauma Centre had been erected on the land in question in the year 2012. Even then no consequential relief was sought by the plaintiff in his plaint seeking the delivery of the possession of the land in question. Therefore, the very suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court being hit by the provision of proviso Section 34 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT . Against the dismissal of the suit the appeal was preferred on behalf of the petitioner/appellant and at the stage of appeal this amendment was sought by the plaintiff seeking the demolition of the Trauma Centre erected on the land in question and also for delivery of the possession of the land in question. The Amendment Application of the plaintiff has been rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court same needs no interference.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. From the very perusal of the plaint which i