The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party, should be necessary for determining the real question in controversy, and should not change the nature of the suit itself.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 6/12/2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Additional District Judge, Fatehpur) by which the amendment application of the petitioner has been rejected.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a suit No. 6 of 1982 in the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur, for the relief of injunction and for cancellation of the sale deed. It has been alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was dispossessed from the property in dispute on 20/3/1983. The petitioner filed an amendment application for amendment, claiming the relief of possession. The Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, heard the amendment application and allowed the same by judgment and order dated 8/4/1997. The contesting respondents (defendants) filed a Revision No. 46 of 1997 in the Court of District Judge, fatehpur, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 6/12/2000 and set aside the judgment and order dated 8/4/1997 and rejected the amendment application.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order - dated 6/12/2000 the petitioner has approached this court.

( 4 ) THE petitioner submits that as at the time of filing the suit, the petitioner was in possession of the property, as such, no relief for possession was sought in the relief claimed in the suit. Only relief of injunction and cancellation of sale deed was sought while filing the plaint before the Court. As the petitioner during the pendency of the suit has been dispossessed from the property, therefore, it was necessary to amend the plaint seeking relief of possession. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment application can be allowed at any stage and at the time of filing the suit the petitioner was in possession, therefore, no relief or possession was sought and immediately after dispossessing from the land in dispute the amendment application has been filed.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others and has placed reliance upon Para 5 of the said judgment that Court should not adop hyper technical approach while considering the amendment application. Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Deu and others. The reliance has been placed upon another judgment of this court reported in Mishri Singh v. Illrd Additional District Judge, Basti and others.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid decisions the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to allow the amendment application is very wide and can be exercised at any stage of the suit in the interest of justice and the Court should not take very hyper technical view while considering the amendment application.

( 7 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents Sri Srikant, Advocate, has submitted that even assuming without admitting this fact that amendment application can be allowed at any point of time but there must be some reasonable explanation to this effect that the amendments sought and the relief sought in the amendment application was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time when the suit was filed. It has further been submitted that according to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was dispossessed from the land in dispute on 30/3/1983 but the petitioner has not taken any steps to file an amendment application for seeking the relief of possession up to 14/10/1996. It was only in the year 1996, the petitioner has filed an amendment application and the Court below has illegally without considering this aspect of the matter that the amendment sought by the petitioner was highly belated only to delay the proceedings The Revisional Court had recorded a categorical finding of fact regarding the question of limitation and has held that it is not disputed that the amendment can be allowed at any stage if it is established by the plaintiff that relief sought in the amendm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document