U MOHAMMED ISAK Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Keeranur. He had filed the suit to grant a decree for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from selling the suit properties.

(2.) THE first defendant filed a written statement wherein he had stated that in and by the sale deed dated 23.5.1983 the plaintiff sold the suit property to the first defendant and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE first defendant has been paying kist and Patta has been transferred in his name on 6.8.1985.

(3.) ORDER 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under: "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." The Rule can be split into three parts viz. (1) at any stage of the proceedings, either parties to the proceedings may be permitted to amend the pleadings (2) the said amendment may be in such manner and on such terms as may be just (3) amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purposes of determining the real question in controversy. Here, the suit was laid for bare injunction. As per the averments in the affidavit, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant obtained Patta during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff therefore thought fit to pray for declaration, as otherwise, the suit for bare injunction would not serve the purpose. Now, the question of title to the property has got to be determined. The amendment therefore become necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The amendment sought for by the plaintiff falls under the third part of the rule as shown above. Further, the trial of the suit has not been commenced and hence, it would not prejudice either the plaintiff or the defendant. The prayer to amend the pleadings is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. But, at the same time, we are conscious of the fact that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But, at the same time, the Court should not adopt a hypertechnical approach in the matter of deciding the petition for amendment. In fact, the Courts should not be wooden in approaching this kind of petition. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. (Emphasis supplied)