CHINTAPARTHI VENKATARAMANA REDDY Vs. NALLAM RAJAMNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the ground that the continuance of possession of the defendants is unlawful and illegal, sought an amendment of the plaint claiming compensation by way of damages at the rate of Rs.30.00 per month from the date of issuance of the notice dt/- 16-10-1982 till the date of delivery of the plaint schedule property to him The trial court dismissed that petition on the ground that there was an abnormal delay of more than two years and that the plaintiff having slept over his right for such a long period is not entitled in law for the amendment sought for.-In my view the learned District Munsif has acted legally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in dismissing the amendment petition. As regards the power of amendment under 0. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. the general principle is that the power to grant amendment of the pleadings being intended o serve the ends of justice, is not to be narrowly construed and should be liberally exercised, unless the amendment sought for would change the nature of the suit Rules of Procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration- of justice, and a party cannot be ref used just relief merely because f some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. In Jal Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969, SC 1267 the Supreme Court observed.- "The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs." In A.K. Gupta v. Damodar Valley Corporation AIR 1967 SC 96 the Supreme Court, observed that the general rule governing the amendments of the Pleadings, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a ,new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit or new case or cause of action is barred by time. But it is also well recognised, the Supreme Court observed further, that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, if any applicable. The principal reasons that have led to this rule, the Supreme Court emphasized are, first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes, and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what 18.sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended. The expressions cause of action and new case were also defined by the Supreme Court in the same judgment. It is now well settled that amendments of pleadings should be allowed liberally since permission to amend is the rule and refusal, the exception, the guiding principle being promotion of justice.

(2.) Sri N. Ramamohan Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in view of the abnormal delay of two years in licking the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff would have waived his right to compensation or damages for use and occupation of the suit premises and, as such the amendment sought for has been -rightly rejected by the lower Court. There is no substance in this contention raised by the learned counsel. The Court has no power to consider the merits of the proposed amendment at the stage of consideration of the question whether the amendment should be allowed. Rule 17 of 0. VI, C.P.C. confers a wide discretion upon the Courts to allow the amendment of pleadings at any sage of the proceedings, and a Court is not unjustified where it allows the amendment of the, pleadings, even after the issues have been sruck, the evidence of the parties has beer taken and their case has been adjourned for arguments. Amendments are allowed at very Le stage, sometimes even at the appellate, age. Therefore a prayer for amendment cannot be branded as mala fide on the mere ground that it is made at a late stage or that the reason of such a prayer the court is inconvenienced. I am told that the trial of the suit in this case has not yet commenced.

(3.) In Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (AIR 191,76 Pat 76 at p.77) it was held at where the hearing has not yet commenced, prayer for amendment of the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that has been made at a belated stage.