The law of amendment is liberal, and the Court has the discretion to allow an amendment if it serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. (Oral) - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Pawan Kumar had filed a suit against Parshuram @ Parse (since dead represented through his LRs) as well as Dharambir, Jasbir, Agnivesh and Sanjay, all sons of Ishwar Singh, residents of village Luksar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.3.2019 with a consequential relief of declaration.

2. On getting notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statements contesting the suit. The following issues were framed:

1. Whether the defendant no.1 had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 28.3.2009 to sell 4 kanals of land for a consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- and received a part of consideration amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff had already been ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per agreement dated 28.3.09 and is still ready and willing to do so? OPP.

3. Whether the sale deed no.470 dated 24.4.2009 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 & 5 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD.

6. Whether the defendant is entitled to the special costs u/s 35A of CPC? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

8. Relief.

3. The parties were afforded opportunities to lead evidence.

4. During the course of proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint contending that the suit has been filed seeking specific performance of contract with consequential relief of declaration, however inadvertently the plaintiff could not claim relief of possession of land in question, therefore, necessary amendment be allowed in the plaint so as to claim consequential relief of possession of the suit land.

5. The application was not opposed by defendant No.1(b). Whereas vehement opposition the application was offered by defendants No.2 to 5 contending that plaintiff could not seek relief of possession by way of amendment of the plaint; as per the agreement to sell dated 28.3.2009, there was no reference to the possession and the same cannot be claimed now and after the final arguments had been advanced, the prayer could not be allowed. Furthermore, nearly 9 years have elapsed and the amendment is barred by limitation; further the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit because relief of possession is a different cause of action and stands on a different footing. Therefore, the amendment should not be allowed.

6. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 7.5.2019 accepted the application, which left the defendants aggrieved and they have filed the present revision petition.

For ready reference the operative part of the impugned order runs a follows:

After hearing counsels for both the parties, it can be said that law of amendment is quite liberal and parties must be given an opportunity to include all its claim subject to condition that no prejudice is caused to opposite party. The basic purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize the litigation and power given to Courts for allowing amendment is wide enough which can even be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. The object of Order 6 Rule 17 is that the Court must determine the real issue between the parties provided it does not cause prejudice to opposite party. The amendment at belated stage cannot be declined merely because it is sought at a belated stage.

Now in the present facts, the applicant/plaintiff has merely claimed that he be allowed to include the relief of possession while he has inadvertently failed to claim the same in a suit for specific performance. Proviso to Clause-II of Section 22 is quite clear and empowers Civil Court to allow the amendment at any stage. It will be apt to record