Amendments to pleadings that change the nature of a suit are impermissible, and courts must adhere to previous orders regarding necessary party impleadment.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - This judgment shall dispose of two petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P. (C) No.38 of 2021 seeks to assails the order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Title Suit No.39 of 2014. By the Order dated 25.09.2021 the learned Civil Judge disallowed the application filed by the petitioner to exempt him from paying the cost imposed for the failure to file written statement to the amended plaint filed by the respondent no.1. W.P. (C) No. 19 of 2022 assails the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in the same suit by which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (4) CPC filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed in toto.

2. At this juncture it would be relevant to note certain facts crucial for deciding these petitions. In the year 2014 the respondent no.1 filed a suit for declaration of title. It was the respondent No.1's claim that she is the daughter of late Sonam Topden Bhutia and accordingly a declaration was sought to the effect. A further declaration was also prayed that she should be called Aishwarya Bhutia daughter of late Sonam Topden Bhutia in all her official documents. The suit was filed against the general public. By a judgment dated 24.07.2015 the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. In an appeal filed by the respondent no.1 on 22.07.2016 the learned District Judge found that the petitioner was a necessary party as he would be directly affected by the outcome of the case and added him as a defendant. Subsequently on 25.09.2017 the learned District Judge held that given the nature of the suit and the reliefs prayed for there could be no doubt that the petitioner, the respondent no.1 and other legal heirs ought to have been arrayed as parties in the suit as they were necessary parties. The impugned judgment of the trial court of the learned Civil Judge rendered in the absence of necessary parties was set aside and the matter remanded for impleading the legal heirs of late Sonam Topden Bhutia as defendant in the suit. The respondent no.1 who was the plaintiff in the suit was allowed to amend her pleadings to the extent required. On 09.11.2017 the respondent no.1 filed the amended plaint. On 14.05.2018 the amended plaint filed by the respondent no.1 was accepted by the Trial Court dismissing the objection raised by the petitioner that the amended plaint sought to change the nature and character of the original suit. The learned Civil Judge held that the suit was remanded with permission to make all necessary changes after impleading the necessary parties which meant that the respondent no.1 could also claim the properties which had come to their knowledge subsequently lest it is barred by law. It interpreted the term 'extent required' used by the learned District Judge in the remand order to be a broad term which would permit such an amendment. Accordingly, the objection filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The same order dated 14.05.2018 also referred to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14(3) filed by the petitioner which was decided to be heard subsequently. On 08.06.2018 these applications were considered and allowed. On 29.03.2019 this court in CRP No. 05 of 2018 examined the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge. The respondent no.1 conceded that the procedure prescribed by law had not been adhered to and therefore, he had no objection if the order is set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge was set aside. An application for withdrawal of plaint under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC filed on 27.05.2019