SHYAM BABU GUPTA Vs. ATTRI FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition arises out of the order dated 2 7/07/1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 333/91. Thelearned Judge dismissed the application of the plaintiff/petitioner for amendmentof the plaint which was filed under Order 6, Rule l7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this petition are that thepetitioner filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Releif Act in thetrial Court wherein a prayer was made that a decree for possession in respect ofproperty in respect of part of the property bearing No. B-12,Savitri Nagar(SheikhSarai), New Delhi and as defined in the plaint be passed against the defendants/respondents. The written statement was filed by the respondent and the following issues with regard to the title of the property apart from other issues were framed:

(2.) . The learned Additional District Judge heard the application and came tothe conclusion that the plaintiff was intending to change the nature of the suit fromsuit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to a regular suit forpossession which will alter the cause of action. He has further stated in his orderthat in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act limitation prescribed is six months fromthe date of dispossession and in the regular suit for possession, the same isprescribed as 12 years and the limitation period in both the suits are different. Thepetitioner accordingly was intending to change the suit for possession underSection 6 of the Specific Relief Act to a regular suit for possession and the same wasnot permissible. The application was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counselassailed the findings of the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the amendmentsare in-consequential and the same would not in any manner change the nature ofthe suit or were inconsistent with the original plaint. The cause of action or the.character of the suit was not proposed to be altered nor did the amendment willchange the identity of the plaintiff which will remain the same. He has relied uponthe judgment of the Supreme Court as reported Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. NationalBuilding Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1267 which has laiddown certain guidelines for granting leave to amend the pleadings. The relevantportion in paragraph 5 reads as follows:Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration ofjustice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake,negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules or procedure. TheCourt always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfiedthat the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he hadcaused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an orderof costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission,and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.

(3.) . He has then cited the judgment as reported M/s. Ganesh Rading Co. v. MojiRam, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 484 to reiterate the proposition that where theproposed amendments did not alter the cause of action or the character of the suitnor did they change the identity of the plaintiff who remained the same, the,amendments cannot be disallowed.