The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute, in line with Rule 17 of Order VI CPC and legal precedents emphasizing the importance of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and doing full and complete justice between the parties.

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:-

1. Vide this civil revision petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendant assails order dated 27.5.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the lower court vide which amendment sought by the respondent-plaintiff in the plaint, was allowed.

2. It is claimed that after framing of the issues, amendment could not have been allowed and thus, the order is neither valid nor legal.

3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has urged that when the amendment sought for neither changes the nature of the suit nor brings in facts forming new cause of action, and rather is required for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and for effective adjudication of the dispute, the same is to be allowed.

4. During the course of arguments addressed by counsel for the parties, perusal of the paper book and consideration of the attending circumstances reveals that during the pendency of the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff, Punjab Government had acquired part of the suit land for construction of south bye-pass. Information about acquisition was received by the plaintiff only on 15.3.2011 when he was asked to collect the Award amount. As a sequel to this acquisition, share of the plaintiff in the total area for which the plaintiff had filed the suit, had decreased. It was thus an important subsequent event on account of acquisition of share of the plaintiff in land that the amendment in the plaint had become necessary.

5. Plea of the petitioner-defendant that the application had been filed just to delay and dilate the proceedings, whereas the amendment was neither necessary nor was required for adjudication of the matter in controversy, is not tenable.

6. At this stage, reference may be made to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC which provision for ready reference, is appended as below:

"17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial"

7. When the amendment sought for by the respondent-plaintiff in the plaint is of such a nature that it goes to the root of the dispute and is also subsequent to filing of the suit, it becomes necessary to allow it for proper, complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. It is to be noted that the amendment sought for is necessary because:

"(i) It would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There is change of circumstances after filing of the plaint. Nature and extent of suit land has changed consequent upon acquisition of part of it by the Government of Punjab;

(ii) Complete and wholesome adjudication would be made only when amendment is carried out in the plaint;

(iii) Amendment does not alter the character or cause of action in the suit;

(iv) No surprise is being sprung on the opposite party; and,

(v) No injustice or prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner-defendants."

8. In addition to the above-mentioned points, it is also to be noticed that the Court itself had felt it necessary to introduce the amendment in the plaint "for proper adjudication of the case".

9. In view of the discussion as above, with due deference to the law laid down in the authority cited as Vidyabai and others Versus Padmalatha and another 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 (Supreme Court) that after commencement of the trial i.e. after framing of issues and examination of the witnesses, no amendment in a written statement can be allowed, and in the interface of peculiar circumstances of this case, does not sup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document