Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to determine real questions in controversy, without adjudging their merits at the amendment stage.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Application for amendment allowed by trial Court as cause of action arose during pendency of the suit - Plaintiff's right to seek relief upheld - No prejudice to defendant as opportunity to file amended written statement provided. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 8)

(B) Amendment of pleadings - Courts should allow amendments necessary for determining real questions in controversy - Merits of amendment not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The respondent-plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the defendant to close certain openings in a building. The plaintiff, a tenant, filed for amendment of the plaint to include additional relief after the defendant obstructed construction. The trial Court allowed the amendment, stating sufficient grounds existed. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The trial Court's decision to allow the amendment was upheld, emphasizing the plaintiff's right to seek relief and the absence of prejudice to the defendant. (Paras 3, 8)

Issues: The main issues included whether the amendment was justified and if it would cause prejudice to the defendant. (Paras 4, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that amendments should be allowed to ensure all disputes are adjudicated, and the merits of the amendment should not be considered at this stage. (Paras 6, 8)

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the trial Court vide which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the doors opened at point X, Y & Z on first, second and third floor as shown in red colour in the building marked as ABCD in blue colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. A written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner in which it was averred that the plaintiff was a tenant in the shop in dispute and thus, the possession of the plaintiff was not disputed. On 25.05.2022, an application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and in the said application, it was stated that the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff and during the pendency of the suit, about a week before filing the application, the defendant had refused to allow the plaintiff from raising a wall from point C to point B up till the third floor of the building in question and in view of the said fact, the following amendments in the plaint were sought:

(b) In the fourth line of para 4 of plaint after the words “to file present suit” following para needs to be added “And a week ago also plaintiff had requested the defendant to not obstruct him from raising wall from point B to see up till third floor so as to close the openings at point XYZ but the defendant had refused to allow the plaintive to do the same due to which cause of action had accrued to the plaintive to seek relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.

(c) In the last of prayer clause following para needs be added” AND decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from raising wall from point C to point B up till third floor of the building of defendant so as to block the ventilator and openings at point XYZ.”

3. In the reply filed to the said application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the fact that the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff was stated to be a matter of record. The amendment sought was opposed on merits. The trial Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 allowed the said application for amendment of the plaint and observed that as per the averments made in the application, the cause of action for permanent injunction arose during the pendency of the case and thus, there was sufficient ground to allow the said application. It was further observed that the plaintiff was the master of his suit and thus, it was for him to choose the relief he wanted to seek against the other party and since the petitioner/defendant would get an opportunity to file an amended written statement, thus, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is the said order dated 13.03.2024, which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that as per the case of the petitioner, the respondent is a tenant and a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and he has no right to raise construction of any wall over the property/shop, which is under the tenancy of the respondent. It is submitted that the additional prayer sought to be made by virtue of the impugned order is not liable to be granted as the same is meritless and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application for amendment deserves to be rejected.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document