C CHANNARAYAPPA Vs. RANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision application is directed against an order dated 18th march, 1992 whereby an application for amendment has been disallowed. The learned trial judge disallowed the amendment on two grounds the first being that it was belated insofar as it was filed at a point of time when the matter was at a stage where the issues were framed, the evidence was concluded and the case had reached the stage of arguments. Secondly, he has observed that apart from other considerations, the original suit was one for injunction whereas the application for amendment sought to incorporate a prayer for partition. This was an entirely new, different and distinct case and the reliefs that were sought to be incorporated through the amendment were new, and the learned trial judge disallowed it on the ground that it was a complete alteration of the cause of action. It is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) the petitioner's learned Advocate vehemently submitted that an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings and she pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case where it came to the notice of the learned Advocate conducting the proceedings in the trial court that it was necessary to pray for a partition of the disputed property as an application for injunction simpliciter would be an incomplete remedy, that the application was made. A submission was advanced that no prejudice would be caused to the other side insofar as the court would only have to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief for partition and that it would not really involve a total reopening of the proceedings. The further submission was that by not allowing the amendment, the plaintiff would have to file a separate suit for partition which would result in multiplicity of proceedings. It was not in the interest of either of the parties that one more proceeding to be instituted and it was therefore submitted that it is far more expedient that the amendment be allowed and that the entire dispute be resolved in this proceeding.

(3.) the petitioner's learned Advocate relied on an earlier decision of this court in Dundappa Laxmappa and another v Mallappa Bhimappa Bolanatti, Wherein, this court held that the incorporation of the prayer for partition in a suit filed by the joint holder for injunction simpliciter was permissible and that the same could be allowed. This court had occasion to rely on two decisions in Ma Shwe Mya v Maung Mo Hnaung and the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v National Building Material Supply, gurgaon . On the facts of those cases the courts had, at that point of time observed that a certain liberality of approach is necessary while considering amendment applications. This court in the decision referred to supra has relied on that principle and has permitted the amendment. I am in agreement with the earlier views expressed which is now well-settled law, insofar as a court will not refuse corrective action if it is genuine and bona fide and if it is done in good time but more importantly, if it is within the framework of the law.