P K PATEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT LTD Vs. CITY & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff to carry out the amendment as set out in the Schedule annexed thereto. The Plaintiff in the affidavit in support has averred that they had changed the Advocate and when the Plaint was considered by the newly appointed Advocate, it was observed that certain better particulars were not included in the Plaint. They have also averred that certain averments and documents which were necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties were also missed out.

(2.) Mr.Hegde, counsel appearing for the Defendants opposed the application. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Defendant No.1, they have stated that issues have already been framed and that the amendment is sought to be made in order to nullify the defence of the Defendants on the issues of jurisdiction and maintainability.

(3.) It is trite law that the Court has to take a liberal view in allowing the application for amendment which are filed prior to the commencement of the trial and which are necessary to decide the matter in controversy. In view of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court has wide power and unfettered discretion to allow the amendment at any stage of proceedings. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize litigation. In the judgment in the case of Parmeshwar s/o Dhondiba Umbre vs. Mahadeo s/o Waman Raut & Ors., 2012 1 MhLJ 856 the Court has held in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 which read as under :