Amendments to pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed unless they cause serious injustice or change the nature of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This revision petition has been filed by petitioner-defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 02.07.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No.CS 43716 of 2013 titled 'United India Insurance Company Limited and another v. M/s Goel Roadways and another', whereby application filed by respondent-plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint, has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,67,615/- by way of compensation and damages for the damaged delivered consignment dispatched vide G.C. Note No.736609 dated 10.06.2009 Ex. Coimbatore to Malerkotla pleading therein that plaintiff No.1 is a special power of attorney of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 - M/s Nahar Fibres Proprietors Nahar Spinning Mills Limited had got a consignment of machinery from M/s Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Perianalcken Playam, Coimbatore vide invoice No.111900163/2 dated 10.06.2009 worth Rs.34,82,719.42. The said consignment was dispatched through defendants vide G.C. Note No.736609 dated 10.06.2009 Ex. Coimbatore to Malerkotla through truck Nos.HR-45-A-1403 and HR-56-4932 for safe carriage and delivery at the destination station. The said consignment was duly insured with plaintiff No.1 vide policy No.200900/21/08/02/00000689. The said consignment was delivered damaged at the destination station since truck No.HR-56-4932 met with an accident in transit. The factum regarding damaged delivery of the consignment was confirmed by the defendants vide their damage certificate bearing reference No.0779 dated 26.11.2009 addressed to Nahar Fibres, 373, Industrial Area A, Ludhiana. It is further pleaded that in spite of lodging the claim by plaintiff No.2 with the defendants vide letter dated 07.07.2009 at Ludhiana, they had not taken any step to settle the claim. Upon notice, defendants filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, respondent-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, which has been allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the application of the plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint, which is in flagrant violation of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. He further contended that in the present case the trial had already commenced and after commencement of trial the trial Court could not have allowed the amendment application filed by respondent-plaintiffs as it was not maintainable. He further contended that respondents have nowhere stated in the application seeking amendment in the plaint that amendments sought to be made in various paras of the plaint were not in their knowledge initially at the time of preparing the plaint and that after due diligence those facts came to his knowledge lateron. He further contended that respondent-plaintiffs by way of amendment are seeking to improve their case and same cannot be permitted under the law and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs, Law Finder Doc Id # 143877; Civil Appeal No.1638 of 1987 - Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar - decided on 13.12.1989; Civil Appeal No.5667 of 2006 - Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others - decided on 08.12.2006; Civil Appeal No.2019 of 2007 - Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others - decided on 18.04.2007 and J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012(1)