MIRA BANWAR vs SMT. SANGEETA BARLA

The petitioner, defendant in Title Suit No.83 of 2007 is aggrieved of order dated 06.09.2011 by which amendment in the plaint has been allowed by

the trial court.Â

Title Suit No.83 of 2007 was instituted for a decree of declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest and for cancellation of sale deed dated

24.02.1992. About three years after the defendant filed written statement an application for amendment in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff.

Through this amendment the plaintiff seeks amendment in various paragraphs in the plaint including the relief portion. Amendment application dated

02.02.2010 was resisted by the defendant on the ground that it would amount to withdrawing admission by the plaintiff and it would change the nature

of the suit.Â

In “North Eastern Railway Admn. Vs Bhagwan Dasâ€​ reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :

 “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the

relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In

Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil which still holds the fields,  it  was  held  that  all amendments ought to be allowed

which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose  of  determining  the

 real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same

position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.â€​

4. A glance at application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff would disclose that most of the amendments are on account of

typographical errors or addition of few words by way of elaboration. The amendment sought in the relief portion does not change the relief originally

sought but it is redrafting of the relief by change of phraseology; through amendment the plaintiff intends to insert that sale deed dated 24.02.1992

would not confer any right, title and interest upon the defendant and it shall not vacate the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. In my opinion once

a decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 24.02.1992 is sought by the plaintiff, by taking a stand in the plaint that the aforesaid sale deed shall not

confer any right, title and interest upon the defendant the plaintiff is not incorporating a new relief in the suit.Â

5.  In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 06.09.2011, the writ petition is dismissed.        Â