Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1853
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Marakkal & Another
Versus
Maran & Others
C.R.P.PD.No.2750 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on: 04-06-2013
For the Petitioners:R.T. Doraisamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R2 to R4, B. Kumarasamy, R1, No Appearance.
The Court emphasized the importance of allowing necessary amendments to decide the real controversies in a suit and promoting substantial justice, highlighting the discretionary power of the Court in allowing amendments.
Headnote:
Amendment of Plaint - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - AIR 1967 Supreme Court 96 - O.S.No.136 of 2008 - I.A.No.321 of 2011
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought to amend the Plaint in a suit for permanent injunction after the trial Court reserved judgment and framed additional issues. The trial Court dismissed the amendment application as belated and lacking bona fides.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court's dismissal of the amendment application was unjustifiable and set aside the order, directing the trial Court to permit the amendment of the Plaint and proceed with the suit.
Issues: The main issue was the belated filing of the amendment application and the lack of bona fides, leading to the trial Court's dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that amendments necessary for deciding the real controversies in the suit should be allowed, and that rejection of an amendment application should be based on acceptable reasons. It also highlighted the discretionary power of the Court to allow amendments and promote substantial justice.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the trial Court's order and directing the trial Court to permit the amendment of the Plaint and proceed with the suit.
1. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.03.2011 in I.A.No.321 of 2011 in O.S.No.136 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.
2. The Learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam, while passing the order in I.A.No.321 of 2011 in O.S.No.136 of 2008 on 17.03.2011, in paragraph 11, has specifically observed that the relief sought for by the Petitioners (Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs) is in the nature of changing the cause of action and further, only after framing the additional issues, the Petitioners have averred that they have to amend the Plaint which in effect will create a new cause of action and also that when the suit has been posted for enquiry in regard to the additional issues, the Application filed by the Petitioners is not bona fide and resultantly, dismissed the Application as belated one, without costs.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs submits that in the main suit O.S.No.136 of 2008 filed by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the Respondents/Defendants, arguments have been heard on both sides by the trial Court and Judgments was reserved on 02.02.2011. However, the trial Court has suo motu reopened the main Suit O.S.No.136 of 2008 on 15.02.2011 and on that day, it has framed two additional issues to the effect that (i) without seeking the relief of declaration, the filing of the suit by the Plaintiffs whether it is maintainable? (ii)Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession of suit properties? Thereafter, on 03.03.2011, the Revision Petitioners/ Plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.321 of 2011 seeking amendment of Plaint in regard to declaratory relief viz., that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties.
4. The main tenor of the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is that the trial Court itself has suo motu reopened the main suit O.S.No.136 of 2008 after the same has been reserved for Judgment on 02.02.2011 and in fact, on 15.02.2011 the trial Court has reopened the main case for the purpose of letting in additional issues and for marking of additional documents consequent upon framing of additional issues and as such, when the trial Court itself has suo motu reopened the main suit and has framed two additional issues as stated earlier, then, the dismissal of I.A.No.321 of 2011 [filed by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the trial Court to amend the Plaint for the reasons thereunder] cannot be found fault with in any manner. In this regard, the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the I.A. by observing that the Application I.A.No.321 of 2011 has been filed belatedly and there are no bona fides in regard to the filing of the said Application.
5. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd., V. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 96 at special page 98, wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9, it is laid down as follows:
"(8) The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistake (Cropper v Smith, (1884) 26 Ch D 700 (710-711) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, (1909) ILR 33 Bom 644 at p. 651, approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda, 1957 SCR 595 (603): (AIR 1957 SC 363 at p. 366) ).
(9) The expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in Cooke v.
