Amendment of pleadings should be allowed unless it is mala fide or causes injury to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for declaration of his title with regard to the property in dispute and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed title to the property and maintained that they were in possession thereof. The defendants denied the averments made by the plaintiffs and asserted that the plaintiffs were neither the owners of the property in question nor were they in possession thereof. They set up their own possession over the property. They also pleaded that they had perfected their title by remaining in adverse possession thereof.

The trial court on a consideration of the evidence found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in question but found that they were not in possession. In view of the same, the trial court also repelled the contention of the defendants that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. On these findings, the suit was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff Ganpat Singh filed an appeal against that decision in the court of the District Judge. The appeal was heard by II Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh who dismissed it. The plaintiff Ganpat Singh has now come to this Court on second appeal.

3. Before the appellate court below an application, 17 Ka was moved for amendment of the plaint. That application was opposed vide objection 18 Ka. The appellate court below has rejected that application on the ground that it was belated. The observation of the appellate court below in this behalf was in these terms:-

" This application has been moved in the year 1970 and the suit was filed in the year 1966. If it is allowed at this stage amendment will relate back to the date of suit and this may affect the question of limitation which may or may not be over by now. So this will deprive the defendants of valuable right. Hence I would not allow the amendment application at this stage."

4. For the appellant it was urged that the appellate court below had erred to rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. It was submitted that the trial court had held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in question. That being so, the appellant was entitled to recover possession of that property. It was further submitted that the appellate court below was itself not sure as to whether the limitation for seeking possession of the property had expired or not. Hence the observation of the appellate court below to the effect that if the amendment would be allowed, the defendants will be deprived of the valuable right was clearly untenable. I find force in the contention. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in question. True it is that the plaintiffs had not asked for ejectment of the defendants from the said property and for delivery of possession of the same at the initial stage of the suit. The defendants had no doubt asserted that they were in possession of the said property before the trial court. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, had contended that they were in possession of the property. On this basis it was submitted on behalf of the respondents before me that it was not a fit case where amendment of the plaint should have been allowed at the stage of the first appeal. The plaintiffs, as pointed out earlier, had asserted their title and their assertion in that behalf was found to be correct. The necessary consequence, therefore, was that if the plaintiffs were not in possession and the defendants were in possession without title, the plaintiffs could claim for delivery of possession of the property provided that relief was not barred by limitation or any other law. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document