ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.170/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi, is directed against the impugned order dated 06.06.2022, whereby the application I.A.No.10 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. After commencement of trial, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by seeking to insert one sentence after the first sentence of paragraph-5 of the plaint as under;

“Thereafter, the defendants delivered possession to the plaintiffs on the date of Panchayath”.

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, respondents- plaintiffs contended that in the original plaint, in particular at paragraph-5, they had already stated that a Panchayat was called for and defendants were advised to vacate the suit land and the defendants having promised to do so, the respondents-plaintiffs were in actual and physical possession of the land. It was contended that the said plea already put forth in the original plaint at paragraph-5 was sought to be elaborated by specifically stating that the petitioners-defendants delivered possession of the suit scheduled property to the plaintiffs and as such, it was necessary (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)

that the plaintiffs be permitted to carry out the proposed amendment to the plaint.

4. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners-defendants, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under:-

“ Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed the present application U/0.6 rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint as per proposed amendment.

2. Along with application the affidavit of plaintiff is filed.

It is contending that, this is a suit filled by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of injunction. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wanted to insert “ Thereafter the defendants delivered the possession to the plaintiffs on the date of Panchayat" It is stated, the proposed amendment is very much necessary for adjudication of case. Hence sought to amend the plaint.

3. The learned counsel for defendant has filed objections to the said I.A. by denying each and every contents of the affidavit filed along with I.(cid:1).(cid:2)(cid:3).(cid:4). It is stated that, the present application is filed at belated stage. The reasons shown in the affidavit are not sufficient to allow the application and therefore sought to reject the I.A.

4. Heard the arguments.

5. The following points arise for my consideration:-

1. Whether proposed amendment is necessary for better adjudication of the case?

2. What order?

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)

6. My findings on the above points are as under-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- As per final order for the following-

REASONS-

7. Point No.1. Admittedly this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for seeking relief of injunction. Already evidence of plaintiff side as completed and case posted for cross of Dw.1. When the case posted for cross of Dw.1 the present application filed seeking amendment of plaint as per proposed amendment.

8. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC permits amendment at any stage of the proceedings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The expression at any stage of the proceedings is far more elastic than the stage contemplated in order IX rule 7 which specifies in no uncertain terms as to at what stage it will be attracted. Whereas the expression at any s