Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Dr. K. Jacob & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Madras Medical Mission, Represented by its Honourable Secretary (Inteim), Chennai & Another - Respondent
A. Nos. 3632 & 3633 of 2022 in C.S. Nos. 153 & 154 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Amendment of Plaint - Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules 1908 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to permit the Applicants/Plaintiffs to amend the Plaint in C.S.Nos.153 & 154of 2022 - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment of pleadings - Multiplicity of proceedings - Real questions in controversy - Court's power to allow amendment - Proper valuation of suits
Fact of the Case:
The applicants/plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint in C.S.Nos.153 & 154 of 2022 to include a prayer to declare a new notice dated 01.08.2022 as null and void, similar to the notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the amendment, stating that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suits and was necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The Court emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings and preserve the interests of the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendment of the plaint to include a new cause of action based on a subsequent notice was permissible and whether the suits were properly valued.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the proposed amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real questions in controversy. It emphasized the liberal approach in allowing amendments to pleadings and the Court's duty to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the applications, directing the applicants/plaintiffs to carry out the necessary amendments and serve the amended copies of the plaint to the respondents/defendants.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules 1908 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to permit the Applicants/Plaintiffs to amend the Plaint in C.S.Nos.153 & 154of 2022.)
Common Judgment
1. These applications have been filed seeking to permit the Applicants/Plaintiffs to amend the Plaint in C.S.Nos.153 & 154 of 2022.
2. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in A.No.3632 of 2022 and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that subsequent to the filing of the C.S.Nos.153 & 154 of 2022, the respondents/defendants convened the meeting for the election to the Governing Board of the 1st respondent/defendant Society for the year 2022- 25. Whereas, the present suit has been filed challenging the impugned notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 calling for the nomination for contesting the election for the term 2021-24 of the Governing Body of the 1st respondent/defendant society. According to the applicants/plaintiffs only seven nominations were received and as per the Clause 44, these persons were elected. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, one more notice was also issued on 01.08.2022 calling for the nomination for the seven vacancies that were to arise in the Governing Board for the period 2022-25. The applicants/plaintiffs immediately moved applications before this Court, wherein, this Court granted interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from implementing the notice dated 01.08.2022.
3. Now the present Applications have been moved for amendment of the plaint since pending the suit, another notice dated 01.08.2022 was issued by the 2nd respondent/defendant. Though issuance of another notice dated 01.08.2022 is entirely a new cause of action, however, as already suits were filed challenging the similar notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, amendment of the plaints was sought in the present applications to include the prayer, 'to declare the notice dated 01.08.2022 also as null and void' and other consequential reliefs. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit that already similar notices were challenged by the applicants/plaintiffs and whatever the ultimate outcome of the suit in respect of similar notices, viz., 15.07.20222 and 25.07.2022 would be the same outcome in respect of the fresh notice dated 01.08.2022 and hence, no separate suit is required and further, it could avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
4. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that under Order VI Rule 17CPC, wherein before the commencement of trial, the plaintiff can be permitted to make any amendment in the pleadings and absolutely there is no bar to bring new cause of action and seek a fresh prayer based on the new cause of action since the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the dispute between the parties since already declaration in respect of notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 was sought for and since the fresh notice was issued during pendency of the suits on 01.08.2022, without filing another suit, the applicants have sought for amendment of the plaint, seeking similar relief of declaration in respect of the notice issued on 01.08.2022. The learned Sennior counsel would submit that allowing the present amendment, absolutely, the character and nature of the suits is not going to be altered and that the present cause of action is not going to substitute any of the cause of actions mentioned in the plaints. Therefore, they would submit that there is absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants in the event of allowing the present applications.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Hallel Ben, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/defendant and Mr.Thomas T.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defendant in both the applications, while strongly opposing the pre
The Court emphasized the liberal approach in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
An amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be disallowed if it changes the nature of the suit or introduces an entirely new cause of action foreign to the original plaint, even if aime....
The court upheld the principle that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine real questions in controversy, especially where trial has not commenced.
The main legal point established is that amendments to pleadings can be allowed if necessary for deciding the rights of the parties, bonafide, and relevant, without causing prejudice that cannot be c....
An amendment to a plaint is permissible if it does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action and does not prejudice the defendants, as per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for justice and do not change the nature of the suit.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of previously decided issues in subsequent applications, thus maintaining procedural integrity in litigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
