Amendments for consequential relief can be made before judgment to ensure comprehensive adjudication of rights.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order whereby an application seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected by the court below. The suit was one for declaration of title, possession, fixation of boundary and declaration of easement rights. The suit went for trial. The plaintiff’s evidence was over and defendants evidence was almost over. At that stage the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint by adding a relief for recovery of possession of A schedule properties. The relief portion alone was sought to be amended and none of the earlier averments contained in the plaint regarding the possession of the plaintiff was sought to be amended. The reason stated for seeking such an amendment is that when the plaintiff was examined, since he was short of hearing, he mistook a question and stated that he was not in possession of plaint A schedule. It is submitted that since such a statement has been made by the plaintiff, it became necessary to seek a prayer for recovery of possession also. The trial court considered the application and dismissed the same. The reasons stated in the impugned order are that the suit was filed by the petitioner stating that he was in possession of the plaint A schedule property and he has title over the same and he had no case that he was not in possession. The court found that if the petitioner was not in possession of plaint A schedule properties at the time of filing of the suit, then he ought to have raised such a claim at the time of filing of the suit itself since he had knowledge regarding the same. It is also stated that the petitioner has not stated in the petition that despite due diligence, the petitioner could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial. Since there is such a requirement under law, the court held that the petition cannot be entertained. The court also found that the purpose of cross- examination is to elicit the truth and if something is elicited from the mouth of the witness, the lacuna cannot be filled by way of an amendment to overcome the same. I do not think that the said observation is fully correct. In fact, what is sought for is not to fill up the lacuna in what has been stated since the amendment is actually against what is stated in the pleadings and there is no question of filling up a lacuna in such a manner since it will not in any manner help the plaintiff. It is the above order that has been challenged before this Court by the petitioner.

2. The counsel for the petitioner after narrating the facts relied on the decision of this Court in Jose T.Y. v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC OnLine 1313] and the decision of the High Court of Patna in Suman Kumar v. Chhathi Lal Rai [2018 SCC OnLine Pat 1834]. InSuman Kumar (supra) the court was considering an amendment which sought to introduce a new relief which read as follows:

“If the courts finds in any way the plaintiff out of possession, the delivery of possession may be ordered and within certain days the defendant be directed to hand over the possession.”

3. The court referred to Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, which says that the plaintiff is required to make a prayer for alternative or consequential relief and if no such prayer is made, the suit can be dismissed on that ground alone. The court accepted the contention and held that a consequential relief can be added at any time before the delivery of the judgment in order to pass effective order/judgment and resolve the dispute between the parties.

4. In Joy T.Y.(supra) this Court was concerned with the amendment of the written statement after the commencemen