SUKDEV CHAND Vs. VISHNU DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 embodies the rule that the Court should get at and try the merits of the case that comes before it and should consequently permit such amendments which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties without causing injustice to the other side. Such a power of allowing amendments has been conferred upon the Courts in the larger interests of doing full justice to the parties. This rule gives wide discretion to the Court to allow or reject amendments under the specified circumstances of each case. Power to allow amendment is very wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the various High Courts and the Apex Court in the Country. It was held in A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation AIR 1967 S. C. 96; Smt. Gangq Bai v. Vijay Kumar AIR 1974 S. C. 1126; Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moti Ram AIR 1978 S. C. 484 that the object of the rule was to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes by allowing amendment of the pleadings in appropriate cases. The exercise of the power though discretionary yet is circumscribed by judicial considerations. It is acknowledged position of law that wider the discretion, greater is the care and circumspection on the part of the. Court. On the basis of various judgments it is settled that the following principles should be kept in mind while deciding the application for amendment of the pleadings:

(2.) IT therefore follows that amendments can be allowed in appropriate cases at any time at the request of the parties. No party can claim to amend the pleadings as a matter of right and the circumstances under which prayer for amendment can be allowed, as indicated hereinabove, are general and not exhaustive. The circumstances may differ from case to case and the Court deciding the prayer for amendment of the pleadings is required to arrive at the conclusion by keeping in mind the facts of each individual case but keeping in view the object that the Courts are required to do substantial justice and not to punish a party on technical grounds. If the result of allowing amendment is only to force a party to start a fresh litigation, such an approach must be discouraged and the parties allowed to litigate in the same lis with respect to the subject matter of the dispute without changing its basic character or the nature of the litigation. :

(3.) IN the instant case, the landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute originally on the grounds of arrears of rent, nuisance and material impairment of value and utility of the building. Thereafter, an application in terms of Order 5, Rule 17 of the Code was filed praying for amendment of the eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity for and on behalf of his son who was alleged to have retired on 31. 1:1993. After affording the parties on opportunity of being heard, the trial Court permitted the landlord to incorporate the ground of personal requirement for his son and son-in-law vide order impugned in this petition. It has been argued on behalf of the tenant that the amendment sought to be made was intended to substitute a new suit which was beyond the scope of order 6, Rule 17 of the Code. Under similar circumstances where the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in possession an application seeking permission to amend the plaint was filed by stating that the tenant had taken forcible possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff sought permission to seek the relief of possession, the defendant resisted the said application on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir considering the matter in Mst. Dedir v. Mst. Khatji, AIR 1954 J and K 63 held: