Gurdeep Pal Singh Chadha vs Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The instant revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.06.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby application for amendment of the plaint moved by the petitioner/plaintiff has been declined. Initially, the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to release the amount of Rs. 1,15,689/- (One lac fifteen thousand six hundred and eighty-nine) with interest @ 18% per annum or in alternative for a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,15,689/-. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner/plaintiff realized that some facts are required to be mentioned in para. Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint, which read as under:-

Para. No. 1

Rs. 13000/- were received by the defendant vide call deposit No. DC/860335/252/93-94 dated 4.8.1993 of UCO Bank of the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana Branch.

Para. No. 2

The work executed by the plaintiff was entered in the Measurement Book No. 1280 P. 53 by the concerned J.E. and the bills were also prepared on the said Measurement Book.

Accordingly, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of plaint, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that this petition must succeed. It is well settled principle of law that where by mistake or inadvertence the plaintiff omits to include an appropriate relief, the Court has always the power to grant the same according to the circumstances of the case. This principle is in fact recognized by Order 7 Rule 7 of the CPC. It is controlled by only three conditions, namely, (i) that the relief granted should be based on facts stated or referred to in the plaint and should not be inconsistent with the case set up by the plaintiff, (ii) the relief granted should be based on the same cause of action as the relief claimed in the suit and (iii) the relief granted to the plaintiff should not be of an entirely different description from the relief claimed in the plaint.

It is now well settled by various decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as High Courts that the Courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side or that the prayer for amendment is not a bona fide one. Moreover, rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. Howsoever negligent or careless may have been the first omission and howsoever late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. Mere delay in making an amendment application, itself, is not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be compensated in terms of money. Amendment is to be allowed when it does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite side. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/plaintiff only wants to add some words in para. Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint. Since the petitioner/plaintiff is claiming the amount on the basis of earlier existing contract and the work down by the petitioner/plaintiff, he wants to make reference to the measurement books. As such, the amendment is only clarificatory in nature. In view of the same, the present petition is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) to be paid to State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28.10.2013.

Disposed of.