The court held that amendments to pleadings should not alter the fundamental nature of the case and must be sought in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.42,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 28.12.2016 till actual realization. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-respondents wherein a specific statement was made that they were ready and willing to allot a plot to the plaintiff-petitioner in Sectors 37, 38 and 39, but the plaintiff-petitioner had refused to accept the same and had also refused to enter into the plot-buyer agreement. However, the plaintiff-petitioner was insisting on an allotment in Sector 23, Panipat. It was further stated that in order to avoid any litigation, they were ready to allot a plot to the plaintiff-petitioner in Sector 23, Panipat at the agreed rate subject to a limited period offer after filing of the written statement. However, it was denied that there was any agreement between the parties to allot a plot in Sector 23, Panipat and to deliver possession by October 2014. The said written statement was filed on 24.08.2017. The plaintiff-petitioner did not encash upon the offer made by the defendant-respondents and chose to continue with the suit. In the year 2022 the application for amendment of the plaint was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC wherein the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to amend the headnote by adding “Suit for Mandatory Injunction for allotment of a residential plot at good location at Sector 23, TDI, Panipat” and had also wanted to add para 9-A which reads as under:

“9-A. That after receiving an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- from the plaintiff the defendants never called him for execution of buyer agreement through written notice and did not exhibited their readiness and willingness for allotment of the plot to the plaintiff for which they are legally bound. Even after filing of written statement, the defendants kept mum and took no step for allotment of plot and execution of Buyer Agreement, so the defendants have been playing hide and seek games and they acted in violation of all the provisions contained in The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016) and other rules, regulations, Acts and by laws applicable on the subject under litigation. Even the defendants have violated the rules natural justice, fair play and equity.”

Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order, the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the plaintiff-petitioner wishes to amend the pleading only in view of the written statement filed by the defendant-respondents wherein they had themselves offered a plot. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff-petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the plot and, hence, necessitating amendment in the pleading.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that written statement was filed in the year 2017 and in the reply filed to the application for amendment, it had categorically been stated that now there is no plot available. In any case, the learned counsel while referring to para 7 of the written statement has pointed out that the offer was a limited period offer and since the plaintiff-petitioner did not avail of the offer, now the plaintiff-petitioner cannot be permitted to change the nature of the suit from that of a suit for recovery to a suit for man