MUNCIPAL COUNCIL RAIGARH Vs. LAXAMANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed by petitioner -plaintiff Municipal Council, Raigarh, through the Chief Municipal Officer against an order dated 23 -6 -1976 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No 10 -A of 1973.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, leading to the present revision are that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the respondent defendant Laxmandas from the suit accommodation on certain grounds mentioned under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. 1961. In reply the defendant stated that not he but two other namely Sawalmal and Heeramal were the ienants of the suit accommodation and he being the son of Sawalmal is in possession of the premises. He also raised number of other pleas for the dismissal of the suit. After respective parties adduced their evidence then on 21 -6 -1976 an application under Order 6 rule 17 or the Code of Civil procedure was moved by the plaintiff seeking a prayer to amend the plaint so as to incorporate an alternative claim for a decree for possession on the basis of his title. Advalorum Court fee on the alternative claim was sought to be paid. The application was opposed by the defendant. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay and also for the reason that the amendment sought to be made in the plaint being of no substance. It further held that if the amendment sought is allowed it will entail irrepairable injury to the defendant which cannot be compensated by costs. Therefore, the plaintiff has now come up before this Court in the present revision against that order.

(3.) SO far as the rule for granting permission to amend plaint is concerned, it is now well settled. An amendment cannot be refused merely on the ground that it was being sought at the belated stage if the administration of justice requires that. It can also not be refused because of some mistake or negligence on the part of the party seeking the amendment provided the relief sought to be claimed through the amendment is just. The amendment can be refused by the Court only when it finds that the party seeking the same was acting malafide or that if the amendment is allowed it would entail an, irreparable injury to the other side which cannot be compensated by an order of courts that is to say otherwise should ordinarily be allowed if it can be without injustice to the otherside. I am supported in my view by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 2169, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that: -