AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioners have filed O.S No. 1393/2007 against the Respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.,) Mysore. The Respondents have filed separate written statements and contested the suit. Issues having been framed, trial has commenced. Petitioners filed I.A No. 6 seeking permission of the court to amend the plaint and to incorporate an additional prayer and substitute a word "re-conveyance" with "re-sale" in the existing prayer. The application having been opposed, upon consideration, the trial court has passed an order rejecting LA No. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiffs have filed this writ petition.
The reasons for rejection of l.A No. 6 by the trial court are :
(a) Application was filed when the matter is posted for cross-examination of PW-1;
(b) Delay in filing the application and lack of due diligence;
(c) Introduction of a new case and taking away the defence which will cause prejudice to the Defendants.
On the basis of existing pleading, the Petitioner is seeking an additional relief and substitution of a word in the prayer column. The amendment proposed reads as follows :
Declare that Sale Deed dated 14.09.2000 executed by Late Manchegowda & Plaintiff in favour of 1st Defendant relating to plaint schedule property is essentially a document of Mortgage of Condtional sale.
(a) to delete the word ''re-sale'' in prayer column (a) and to incorporate the same with ''Re-conveyance.
Heard the learned Counsel or both sides and perused the writ papers.
Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC empowers the court to permit amendment of pleading at any stage of proceeding. However, the proviso thereunder imposes certain restriction. Amendment could be permitted if it is established that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial and if the proposed plea is required for deciding the real question in controversy between the parties i.e., to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Petitioner has sought additional relief on the basis of the existing pleading. If a party can seek relief on the basis of the existing pleading, there cannot be any prejudice to the opponent. In certain circumstances, in order to minimize the litigation, if the party is entitled to a particular relief, which has not been specifically prayed, the court in the interests of justice moulds the relief. In the circumstances, there is no introduction of any new case muchless causing any surprise to the Respondents. The Defendants have not yet cross-examined PW-1. The Respondents have the opportunity to file additional written statement. If any additional issues arise for consideration, the same can be raised. In my opinion, no injustice or prejudice of an irremediable character will be inflicted upon the Respondents by permitting the incorporation of the proposed amendment.
From the perusal of the pleadings, to decide the real question in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment proposed i.e., for substitution of a word in the prayer column and incorporation of additional prayer, can be permitted, by directing the Plaintiff to pay compensatory cost to the Defendants i.e., for causing delay in disposal of the suit. The trial court on account of a misdirection adopted, without considering I.A No. 6 in the correct perspective has passed the impugned order, which is irrational.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands quashed. I.A No. 6 filed in the suit stands allowed. The Plaintiff is permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment in the plaint before 10.01.2011 by depositing or paying cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the Defendants, in the trial court. The Defendants are entitled to file their additional written statements i.e.; within 15 days from the date a copy of the amended plaint is served on the Defendants or their learned advocates. Additional issues, including the bar of limitation, if any, shall be raised within three weeks from the date the additional written statement is filed. The trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as practicable and at any event, within a period of 8 months from the date the suit is posted for trial.
The Plaintiffs shall adduce and complete their side of evidence within two months from the date the suit is posted for their side of evidence and the Defendants shall adduce and complete their side of evidence within three months from the date the Plaintiffs close their side of evidence. The trial court shall hear the arguments and decide the suit within the aforesaid period.