DINESH KUMAR Vs. ADDL DISTT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri B. B. Paul, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Dr. H. N. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction praying that he should be declared the owner of M/s. Chhotey Lal Dinesh Kumar Tent House as well as of the Guest House. It was alleged that the property in question was purchased from his own funds and that the defendant had nothing to do with it. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, it was alleged that the defendant was threatening to take the possession of the property in question. It transpires that on the application for grant of temporary injunction, the matter came up to the High Court which was disposed of by an order dated 22-4- 2003 directing the parties to maintain status-quo and the petitioner, namely, the defendant was further directed not to alienate the property in question during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the amendment sought was not necessary as it did not determine the real question involved between the parties and therefore, the amendment could not be allowed in view of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. C. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions which are quoted herein under : In Nrisingh Prosad Paul v. Steel Products Ltd. , AIR 1953 Calcutta 15, the Court held that the amendment should be allowed where it determines the real controversy involved in the suit. THEre is no quarrel with the proposition evolved in the aforesaid judgment. THE amendment should always be allowed where it is necessary for the Court to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. THE question for consideration before this Hon'ble Court is, whether the amendment sought was necessary for the purposes in determining the real question in controversy between the parties and whether the amendment in fact changed the nature of the suit or not ?