Amendments to pleadings under CPC should be allowed liberally unless they change the nature of the suit or cause injustice to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral) -

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for amendment of plaint (Annexure P-3) was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that initially, one M/s Shalimar Town Planners Private Limited (sister concern of the present respondent-plaintiff) instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting that an agreement to sell dated 04.01.2007 (Annexure P-1) had been executed between the parties. Written statement (Annexure P-2) was filed. Subsequently, an application for amendment of plaint (Annexure P-3) was filed seeking to convert the suit from permanent injunction to a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell with consequential relief of permanent injunction. This application is stated to have been allowed. However, subsequently, the suit was withdrawn on 09.08.2011 on the ground that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and a fresh agreement had been executed.

3. Subsequently, another suit for permanent and mandatory injunction (Annexure P-4) on the strength of agreement to sell dated 21.01.2010 with respect to 55 acres of land was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff. Written statement was filed. The said suit was also amended and it was converted into a suit for possession by way of specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction (Annexure P-5).

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment of the plaint (Annexure P-8) was moved. It was averred that the resolution in favour of the authorized representative namely Sh. Jay Shankar through whom the suit had been filed was of 29.03.2010 whereas actually the said resolution pertained to the land at Gurugram and that the land in the present case was situated at Faridabad for which the resolution had been passed on 08.03.2010 authorizing Jay Shankar to file the suit. This application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-9). Vide the impugned order, the said application was allowed leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. Referring to the previous suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the application for amendment submitted therein, the subsequent order of withdrawal of the suit which has duly been reproduced in the revision petition as also the plaint, written statement, application for amendment and reply thereto in the present case, learned counsel submits that the respondent-plaintiff has been initiating one litigation after the other and has been harassing the petitioners-defendants. He submits that the resolution pertaining to the land at Gurgaon was annexed and it is only when Sh. Jay Shankar was cross-examined, the application for amendment was moved. He submits that the respondent-plaintiff wanted to fill up the lacunae which is not permissible. He also submits that more than 30 opportunities had already been availed by the respondent-plaintiff for leading evidence after which the application for amendment was filed. He submits that as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17, no amendment could have been permitted after the commencement of the trial but the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the settled law on the subject and e