Sucha Singh and Another vs Chanan Singh and Others

M.R. Agnihotri, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18th Sept., 1986, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st class, Nawanshahar, by which amendment of the written statement was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 375 to compensate the Plaintiff-Petitioners. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they were co-sharers to the extent of 2/10 share in the tubewell fitted with three Horse Power Electric Motor, with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

The written statement was filed on the basis of which the suit proceeded. Later on, Defendant No. 1 submitted an application seeking permission to amend the written statement stating that on 12th Aug., 1986, Defendant No. 1 came to know that some forgery had been committed in the registered deed dated 18th May, 1977 (Ex.P.2), submitted by the Plaintiffs. It was stated that the suit of the Plaintiffs was based on the sale-deed itself by virtue of which they claimed to have acquired the right to the watercourse from the said tube well to the suit land and the document, Ex.P2, had been mutilated and altered with certain additions made therein in order to mislead the Court.

The application was opposed on the ground that if the written statement was allowed to be amended at that stage, it would prejudice the case of the Plaintiffs which could not be compensated by costs and further that the proposed amendment would deprive the Plaintiffs of the advantage which had accrued to them by the admission made by Defendant No. 1 in the written statement.

The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the written statement to be amended by permitting Defendant No. 1 to add the following preliminary objection:

That the sale deed dated 18th May, 1977 executed by Gurmej Singh in favour of Harjinder Singh etc. Ex.P2 is bogus, altered and Hissa Motor has been added to afterwards.

It is this order of the learned Subordinate Judge which is under challenge in this revision petition.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the discretion has been rightly exercised by the learned Subordinate Judge by permitting the amendment to be made in the written statement. It is the consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court that howsoever negligent or careless may have been the first omission and how soever late the proposed amendment the amendment in the pleadings should be allowed if it can be made without causing injustice to the other side. The Plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the Defendant may and a new defence even by introducing a new case by taking into consideration subsequent events. The object underlying Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure, is obviously to avoid multiplicity of litigation and if the object can be achieved by making an amendment in the pleadings in the suit which is already in progress, the Courts should be liberal in permitting the necessary amendment sought to be made instead of leaving them to file separate suits subsequently, especially when the other side can be adequately compensated by awarding costs. In the present case, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the amendment to the written case, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the amendment to the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 375 which, in my view, is sufficient compensation to the Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nawanshahar, on 8th Feb., 1988.