VIDUSHI DUGGAL Vs. DARUPADI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure iei by the plaintiff, the plaintiff [petitioner seeks to amend the plaint by incorporating certain amendments in the plaint mentioned by him in the application. These amendments have been necessitated by passing an Act by Parliament known as Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In substance the plaintiff wants to raise an additional ground in the plaint that defendant No. I was holding the immoveable property in question as a Trustee for the plaintiff No. 1 in a fiduciary capacity and for the benefit of plaintiff No. 1 or the plaintiffs. All the amendments sought for are in consequence of such ground.

(2.) The defendants have opposed the amendment, in fact Mr. Daljit Singh, counsel appearing for the defendants, has vehemently contended that this application of the plaintiff should not be allowed as such as the amendment introduces a new cause of action and sets up a new case altogether. Further, such an amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in. controversy between the parties.

(3.) I have given careful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants but I regret, I am unable to accept his contentions. Since at the time of filing of the suit, the Act was not enacted by the Parliament and in fact never existed, therefore, such an amendment in the plaint could not be visualised by the plaintiffs at that stage while drafting the plaint. The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in the application only incorporates an additional ground in a Suit and does not introduce new cause of action in any way or sets up a new case.