The question of changing the nature and character of the suit, if AMENDMENT is allowed, cannot arise at all. The suit has been filed for eviction inter alia on the ground of arrears of rent. It cannot be disputed that even after the AMENDMENT, the suit would remain a suit for eviction.
KEYWORDS:- AMENDMENT OF PLAINT
AIR 2009 SCW 6131 : (2009) 12 SCALE 665 : (2009) 10 SCC 626
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
(Before : Tarun Chatterjee, Aftab Alam And R. M. Lodha, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 6400 of 2009 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30468 of 2008, Decided on : 18-09-2009.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 6, Rule 17—AMENDMENT of PLAINT—Eviction suit on the ground of arrears of rent—Dismissal of AMENDMENT application by Trial Court on the ground of delay—Order affirmed by High Court by adding that prayer if allowed, shall change nature and character of suit—Mere delay and laches in making application for AMENDMENT cannot be a ground to refuse AMENDMENT—Even if AMENDMENT prayed for is belated, while considering such belated AMENDMENT, Court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where party against whom AMENDMENT is to be allowed, can be compensated by cost or otherwise—Similarly, even after the AMENDMENT, suit would remain a suit for eviction—Nature and character of suit will not change—Impugned order set aside—Application for AMENDMENT allowed subject to payment of costs of ` 10,000/- to opposite party—Appeal allowed.
Counsel for the Parties:
Arun Kumar Beriwal, B. K. Singh and Virender Rawat, for Appellant.
order
1. Leave granted.
2. In our view, this is a case in which the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, and the trial Court had fallen in grave error in refusing AMENDMENT of the PLAINT filed in a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.
3. The appellant, as a PLAINTiff, has filed the aforesaid suit in respect of Property No. 28, Varsha Sarvodaya Housing Co-operative Society, Hirapur post, Tatiband, Raipur, Chhattisgarh against the tenant/respondent.
4. The trial Court rejected the application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT mainly on the ground that the prayer for AMENDMENT was a belated one. In revision, the High Court affirmed the order of the trial Court rejecting the application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT inter alia holding that not only the prayer for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT made by the PLAINTiff/appellant was a belated one, but also that the prayer, if allowed, shall change the nature and character of the suit.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court, this Special Leave Petition was filed by the PLAINTiff/appellant, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. We keep it on record that in spite of notice on the defendant/respondent, no one had contested this appeal before us.
7. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for AMENDMENT was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for AMENDMENT was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the AMENDMENT, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow AMENDMENT of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. Even if, such an application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT was filed belatedly, such belated AMENDMENT cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for AMENDMENT cannot be a ground to refuse AMENDMENT. It is also well settled that even if the AMENDMENT prayed for is belated, while considering such belated AMENDMENT, the Court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the AMENDMENT is to be allowed, can be compensated by cost or otherwise. (See B.K. N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai and another (AIR 2000 SC 614 at Page 616. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there was some delay in filing the application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT, such prayer for AMENDMENT cannot be allowed.
8. So far as the second ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for AMENDMENT of PLAINT, if allowed, shall change the nature and character of the suit, we are unable to accept this view of the High Court. We have carefully examined the AMENDMENT prayed for and after going through the application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT, we are of the view that the question of changing the nature and character of the suit, if AMENDMENT is allowed, cannot arise at all. The suit has been filed for eviction inter alia on the ground of arrears of rent. It cannot be disputed that even after the AMENDMENT, the suit would remain a suit for eviction. Therefore, we are unable to agree that if the AMENDMENT of the PLAINT is allowed, the nature and character of the suit shall be changed. Accordingly, the High Court was not justified in holding that the nature and character of the suit shall be changed, if such prayer for AMENDMENT is allowed.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the orders of the High Court as well as of the trial Court are set aside. The application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT filed by the appellant stands allowed, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party, which shall be deposited/paid within a period of six weeks from the date of Suppl ly of a copy of this order. In default of deposit/payment of such costs, the application for AMENDMENT of the PLAINT shall stand rejected.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
