VINOD Vs. VINITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P6 order in I.A.No.8195/2015 in O.S.No.1273/2012 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge. The said application was filed for amending the plaint by incorporating more extent of land than what is scheduled in the plaint originally, based on a report submitted by the Commissioner who visited the property subsequent to institution of the suit. The Commissioner reported more extent of land than what is scheduled in the plaint and hence the amendment application by the plaintiff. The amendment application was allowed by the trial court under Ext.P6 order, which is under challenge.

(2.) The suit was instituted against the defendants with permission under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. in a representative capacity for and on behalf of the general public. The defendants were arrayed as parties representing the public. Initially permission was granted under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. and requirement under sub Rule (2) was also complied with by publication. It is thereafter the Commissioner who appointed visited the property and prepared a plan, mahazar and report regarding the existence of more extent of land than the registered holdings of the plaintiff. The amendment application was allowed by the lower court without complying with the requirement under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C.

(3.) The mandate under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. is to give notice of institution of a suit claiming relief based on the subject matter of the suit to all concerned. When the plaint is amended incorporating any additional relief or additional property, it would require a further compliance of mandate under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. by publication, though a separate leave (permission) is not required as contemplated under sub rule (1) of Rule 8 of Order I C.P.C. But when the amendment is only for relinquishing any claim or relief over any property or any part thereof, no further compliance of requirement under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. is necessary, when the suit was defended in a representative capacity. The legal position would be different when it was sued in a representative capacity and no claim or relief can be relinquished without a publication under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. The legal position in the matter of settlement, compromise or adjustment subsequent to the institution of the suit is also same and it requires a further compliance of mandate under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. When the plaint is amended adding additional reliefs or by adding additional properties, or when there is substantial change in the nature and character of suit by amendment, it is mandatory that there should be a further compliance of requirement under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. for the amended plaint. Since the plaintiff is seeking to incorporate some more land in the schedule of the plaint, making the same as the subject matter of the suit, it is necessary that the same should be brought to the notice of all concerned by complying with the requirement under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C., in a suit sued or defended representing the public. Hence subsequent amendment requires compliance of mandate under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. without which the same cannot be entertained. The impugned order suffers non-compliance of mandate under Order I Rule 8(2) C.P.C. and hence liable to be set aside.