Court should allow amendments that do not alter the nature of the proceedings, especially at the pre-trial stage.

ORDER

(Reserved on 21/10/2021

Delivered on 25/10/2021)

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II Timarni, Distt. Harda in Civil Suit No. RCSA-10A/2018 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner (plaintiff of the case) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code ( hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) seeking amendment in the plaint.

2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit RCSA 10A / 2018 before Civil Judge Class-II, Timarni, Distt. Harda for the eviction of the respondent / defendant from the suit property and for the recovery of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, on 07/02/2020 petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. averring that during the pendency of the suit, half portion of the suit house has been sold by the plaintiff to Rahul Khore and remaining half to Surendra Kumar by two registered sale deeds dated 18.06.2019. After that plaintiff has no interest left in the suit house. So she wants to delete the prayer of eviction and continue the suit only for recovery of arrears of rent, therefore she be permitted to amend the plaint accordingly. The learned trial court rejected the plaintiff’s application vide order dated 02/08/2021 observing that the boundaries of the property mentioned in the sale deeds do not match with the suit property. So, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has sold the suit property to another person by those sale deeds. On that plaintiff executed rectification deeds and thereafter again filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for permitting her to insert the same amendment in the plaint. Learned trial court again rejected the application vide order dated 11.08.2021 holding that though the plaintiff had executed rectification deeds, those have been executed by the plaintiff regarding documents(Sale Deeds) which are the part of record and have been produced by the plaintiff before court in the suit. According to the provisions of the Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , the documents which are the part of record cannot be amended without the permission of the Court, while the plaintiff executed the rectification deed without the permission of the court. So, said rectification deeds cannot be considered as valid rectification deeds. Hence, on the basis of these rectification deeds, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the boundaries of the suit property.

Being aggrieved from impugned order petitioner/plaintiff filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Respondent in his written statement admitted the tenancy. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner/plaintiff sold the suit property. After that plaintiff has no interest left in the suit house. So she wants to delete the prayer of eviction and continue the suit only for recovery of arrears of rent. Petitioner/plaintiff has not filed the suit for rectification of sale deed, therefore the provisions of Section 26 of Specific Relief Act are not attracted in the suit. Learned trial court wrongly rejected petitioner's prayer. So the impugned order be set aside and petitioner/plaintiff be permitted to carry out the proposed amendment in the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant opposed the prayer and submitted that the earlier a