Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for determining real controversies, provided they do not alter the cause of action or prejudice the other party.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Original Suit No.03 of 2020 corresponding to Misc. Civil Application No.06 of 2020 whereby the petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for making necessary amendment in the plaint has been rejected. Further prayer is made to allow the petition to make out correction in the plaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Original Suit No.03 of 2020 was instituted for recovery of possession and declaring the right title interest which was decided by the judgment/decree dated 23.03.2010 which was challenged by the defendants in the Title Appeal No.07 of 2010 and the said was decided by the judgment dated 22.03.2017 whereby the judgment/decree was set aside and the suit was remanded back to decide afresh by the learned trial court. He submits that a formal prayer was made by way of filing the said petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for correction of the area of the land in question, however, the plot number and khata number are similar. He submits that the nature of the suit will not be changed if the said prayer is allowed, however, the learned Court has rejected the same.

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the suit was already tried and the appeal was preferred which was remanded back and after remand the said prayer made belatedly and rightly no liberty was allowed by the learned Court. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same may kindly be dismissed.

5. Admittedly, the suit was instituted for declaration of right title interest to handover the possession which was decided by the judgment/decree dated 23.03.2010 and the same was challenged before the appellate court in Title Appeal No.07 of 2010 and the said was decided by the judgment dated 22.03.2017 whereby the judgment/decree was set aside and the suit was remanded back to decide afresh by the learned trial court.

6. Petition under Order VI Rule 17 was filed for correction of the area of property in question, however, the plot number and khata number has not been sought to be changed only the area is sought to be corrected in the plaint. If the nature of suit is not being changed by way of formal amendment that can be allowed considering that it was only to rectify the absence of material particulars in document.

7. Reference may be made to the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 , wherein at paragraph No.62 and 71.8, it has been held as under :-

62. In the case of B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 712 relying upon the cases of A.K. Gupta (supra) and Ganesh Trading Co. (supra), this Court held that the court should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of amendment and only when the other side had acquired any legal right due to lapse of time, the amendment should be declined. It has been held as follows:

“…..All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or