9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he suit for injunction was liable to be dismissed. The suit was instituted in the year 1988. In the year 1999, but before the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the plaint. It is alleged in the application that in January 1989, that is, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. On such averment the plaintiff sought for relief of declaration of title to the suit property and consequential relief of the delivery of possession. The suit was proposed to be valued accordingly along with payment of court fee. The prayer for amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant-respondent submitting that the plaintiff was chang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the Trial Court it was one to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the Trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiffs revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. In Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the Court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the Court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed. (See observation in Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy, [2001] % SCC 561. In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 Years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the averments made in the application, the same ought to have been allowed. If the facts alleged by plaintiff are not correct it is open for the defendant to take such plea in the written statement and if the plaintiff fails in substantiating the factual averments and/ or the defendant succeeds in substantiating the plea which he would obviously be permitted to raise in his pleading by way of consequential amendment then the suit shall be liable to be dismissed. The defendant is not prejudiced, more so when the amendment was sought for commencement of the trial. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court and the Trial Court are set aside. The plaintiff is permitted to incorporate the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
