USMAN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated May 18,1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the two applications under Order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the petitioners and refused to allow the amendments prayed for in both these applications.

(2.) THE plaintiffs, in their representative capacity, after obtaining a permission under Order 1 rule 8 C.P.C, filed a suit for eviction against the defendants with respect to the shop in question. During the pendency of the Suit, on February 16, 1992, an application under Order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner -defendants to add para Nos. 10 -A, 10 -B and 10 -C in the written statement. Later on, on March 25,1992, the defendants again moved an application for seeking further amendment in the written statement by way of addition of Para No. 10 -D in the written -statement. Both these applications were opposed by the plaintiffs and the learned trial Court, by its order dated May 18, 1992, dismissed both these applications and refused to allow amendments in the written statements. Both the applications were rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground of delay. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that so far as the payment of rent and the issuance of the receipt are concerned no evidence is required to be produced on those points and the defendants can argue those points at the time of final hearing of the case and, therefore, the amendments sought for cannot be allowed. The learned trial Court, also, observed that the applications have been moved with an intention to delay the proceedings.

(3.) ORDER 6 rule 17 C.P.C. authorises the Court, at any stage of proceedings, to allow either party to the suit to alter or amend the pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The Court should be liberal in granting permission to the parties to amend their pleadings provided the amendment sought for is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties and the amendment will not cause any injustice to the other party. If the amendment sought -for is necessary to resolve the controversy in the matter and does not cause injustice to the opposite party then that should not be refused merely on the ground of delay. The procedural law is designed to facilitate justice and not to provide penalties and punishment. It is the duty of all the Courts to see that no act of the Court, in the course of the proceedings, does an injury to the party to the suit, before the Court. I have perused the amendment applications filed by the petitioners and the order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has dismissed the applications for amendments, filed by the defendant -petitioners, on the ground of delay. Delay alone is not sufficient to reject the prayer for the amendment if the amendments sought for are necessary to resolve the real question in dispute. If the amendment sought is allowed in the present case, no injustice will be caused to the plaintiffs. The amendments sought in the present case, are necessary for the effective decision of the case and to resolve all the controversies between the parties. The order passed by the learned lower Court, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set -aside.