Back
2003 Supreme(UK) 91
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
RAJESH TANDON
BACHAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION 103 Of 2001
Decided On : July 16, 2003
N.C.Gupta, Rajendra Dobhal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may allow the amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to minimize litigation, as long as the amendment does not change the cause of action.
Headnote:
Amendment of Pleadings - Land Grant Dispute - Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. - [AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS] - [LAND GRANT DISPUTE] - [Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C.] - The court allowed the amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to minimize litigation. The amendment did not change the cause of action, and the court emphasized that technicalities of law should not hinder the administration of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of land granted to him. The plaintiff sought to amend the pleadings to declare the order cancelling the grant as void.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to minimize litigation. The amendment did not change the cause of action, and the court emphasized that technicalities of law should not hinder the administration of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment of pleadings should be allowed under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment of pleadings should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to minimize litigation, as it did not change the cause of action.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of pleadings and quashed the previous order. The plaintiff was directed to incorporate the amendment in the plaint within one month, and the District Judge was directed to decide the suit as far as possible within two months. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- for the benefit of poor litigants.
( 1 ) SRI Rajendra Dobhal, for the revisionist and Sri N. C. Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent.
( 2 ) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by the District Judge, Uttarkashi dated 22-4-1986 passed in Original Suit No. 9-of 1985, Bachan Lal v. State of U. R
( 3 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that a suit was filed by Sri Bachan lal Thalwan in the Court of District Judge, uttarkashi praying for the following reliefs : (A) A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession, occupation and enjoyment of two muthi land granted to him forming part of plot No. 2112 in village Barahat, District Uttarkashi by the Deputy commissioner In charge, Uttarkashi. (B) Costs of the suit, and any other relief which the learned court may deem fit in the interest of justice or to which the plaintiff is found entitled. According to the plaint averment the plaintiff applied for two muthi of land out of plot No. 2112 of village Barahat, District uttarkashi in the month of November, 1974. under Government Grants Act, for construction of house for residential purpose. The land according to the plaintiff lies within the limits of Nagar Palika, Uttarkashi. According to the plaintiffs. D. M. Bhatwari after necessary scrutiny submitted papers to the deputy Commissioner with the recommendation that grant of the land may be made to the petitioner. After completing all the formalities the Acting Deputy Commissioner sanctioned grant on 2-4-1975 to the plaintiff and immediately thereafter lease deed was also executed.
( 4 ) DURING the proceedings of the case the plaintiff has applied for amendment in the plaint. The trial Court has rejected the application vide order dated 22-4-1986. The revisionist has challenged the order by filing the present revision under Section 115, c. P. C.
( 5 ) HEARD Sri Rajendra Dobhal for the revisionist and Sri N. C. Gupta, standing counsel for the respondent at great length and have perused the pleadings of both the parties, copy of the plaint, written statement and other material on record.
( 6 ) IN paragraph 11 of the plaint it has been stated that a notice, dated 19-8-1983 from the office of District Magistrate, uttarkashi was served alleging that the grant made in his favour by S. D. M. , Bhatwari was not in accordance with law and was liable to be cancelled and as such show cause notice was issued as to how the grant should not be cancelled. In paragraph 27 the plaintiff claimed the following relief :"that, it is in the fitness of things that the order dated 16-7-84, passed by the District Magistrate/collector, Uttarkashi in case no. 7 of 82-83 by quashed. "
( 7 ) CAUSE of action according to the plaintiff arose when the grant of the land in question was made in his favour by the Incharge deputy Commissioner, Uttarkashi and thereafter lease deed was executed and got signed, by the plaintiff and further that the collector, Uttarkashi cancelled the grant without any authority of law illegally, arbitrarily and inconsistently.
( 8 ) AS will appear from the aforesaid paragraph as well as cause of action which according to the plaintiff was to the effect that the order dated 16-7-1984 passed by the district Magistrate, Uttarkashi in case No. 7 of 1982-83 be quashed and In cause of action also, the plaintiff has pleaded that the District Magistrate has cancelled the grant without any authority of law, illegally, arbitrarily and inconsistently. The pleading with regard to cancellation of patta is already there in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the suit.
( 9 ) IT appears that the relief which was sought by the plaintiff was only with regard to the decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession, occupation and enjoyment of two muthi land granted to the plaintiff. Along with the plaint an application for temporary Injunction was also filed.
( 10 ) DURING pendency of the suit an application was filed by the
