The court can permit amendments to pleadings relating to subsequent events to facilitate justice, provided they do not introduce new causes of action or fundamentally alter the suit's nature.

ORDER :

Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J.

Heard Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dalit Kalai, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents.

2. Title Suit No.5/2022 has been instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff for declaration that she is the owner of brick-kiln, chimney and reactor running in the name and style of ‘M/s Tripureswari Bricks Company’ Amarpur being inherited from her deceased daughter, Rupali Debbarma. She also sought mandatory injunction against the defendant-respondents, their men, agents and labourers not to use the said brick-kiln, chimney and reactor. She has also prayed for realization of an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- as remuneration payable to the plaintiff-petitioner by the defendant-respondents as per Clause 10 of the Partnership Agreement.

3. An application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short) was preferred (Annexure-3) seeking amendment in the plaint and in the prayer portion for a direction upon the defendant- respondents to pay Rs.94,48,949/- as compensation for illegal demolition of brick kiln, chimney and reactor of M/s Tripureshwari Bricks Company, Amarpur along with interest on the assertion that during pendency of the suit the defendants had illegally demolished and dismantled the same from the month of September, 2022 and had constructed new brick kiln, chimney on the same land which was completed in December, 2023. By the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, the learned trial Court has refused to allow the amendment application with an observation that the prayer of the petitioner involves incorporation of prayer for grant of damages as compensation replacing the prayer made under Sections 38 & 39 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT and, as such, it will change the nature and character of the suit from a declaratory suit to a Money Suit which cannot be permitted within the ambit of law.

4. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC, Section 34 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT and also certain decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Versus K.K. Modi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 and in the case of Andhra Bank Versus ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Others reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4466. He submits that such amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit and would only enable the Court to decide the real controversy between the parties. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is required for the reason that because of subsequent events the relief as claimed originally may not be available to be granted and further the proposed amendments refer to such subsequent events or changed circumstances that would not only shorten litigation and avoid multiplicity of litigation but also enable complete justice to be done between the parties. There has been no delay in seeking such amendment since the demolition of the brick kiln, chimney and reactor of M/S. Tripureswari Bricks Company took place in the month of September, 2022 after institution of the suit. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the proposed amendment may be allowed.

6. Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, learned senior counsel for the defendant-respondents, has opposed the prayer on the ground that the proposed amendment is going to fundamentally change the nature and charac