RAMASWAMI REDDI Vs. GENGA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present plaintiff first brought a suit against the defendants to recover 2 out of 5 shares in one plot of property. He also asked in the alternative that he should be given 2 out of 12 shares in that and another plot of property. The District Munsif gave him a decree for 2 out of 5 shares in the first plot. There the defendant preferred an appeal to the District Court. Before the appeal was beard, the plaintiff sued to recover mesne profits in respect of the property decreed to him by the District Munsif, as he faced reserved his right to sue for such mesne profits. In appeal, the District Judge modified the decree of the Munsif and gave the plaintiff 2 out of 12 shares in both the plots. Thereupon the plaintiff presented a petition to the District Munsif to allow him to amend the plaint by inserting a claim for mesne profits on 2 out of 12 shares in both the plots. This amendment was disallowed by the District Munsif, as he Held that the nature of the amendment was such as to Bange the character of the suit. His view was upheld in appeal; and this second appeal has been preferred against that judgment. We are unable to agree with the Courts below.

(2.) We agree with the statement of law contained in the judgment of Oldfield and Krishnan, JJ., reported as Gatiganti Subbarayudu v. Arumilli Surayya 37 Ind. Cas. 914., where they point out that, on a question of the propriety of allowing amendments, each case will have to be decided on the facts presented to the Court. In the present case, the amendment prayed for will not alter the nature of the suit, nor will there be an addition of a new cause of action. The principle to be borne in mind by Courts below is, that, provided the opposite party is not taken by surprise, nor precluded from adducing evidence nor from raising the necessary issues, the amendment should ordinarily be allowed. In the present case, on the date of the application for amendment, the suit was at the very initial stage of the proceedings. No issue had been raised and no evidence had been let in, and, therefore, the District Munsif ought, in the circumstances , to have allowed the amendment. At the same time, we wish to point out that where the plaintiff is agitating only a technical claim or where the character of the suit is likely to be altered, or where there has been an inordinate delay in asking for amendment, the Court will be justified in refusing to grant an amendment. The main considerations to be borne in mind are that multiplicity of suits should be avoided and the interests of substantial justice should be advanced.

(3.) As regards the cases quoted at the Bar, Mr. Krishnaawami Aiyar strongly relied upon the observation of Lord Esher in Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394 : 56 L.J.Q.B. 621 : 35 W.E. 820. In that case, the amendment necessitated the adding of a new cause of action, as was pointed out by the learned Master of the Rolls. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that in England pleadings are drafted with greater care than in this country. In an early case before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reported as Mohummud Zahoor Ali Khan v. Musammat Thakooranee Rutta Koer 11 M. I A. 468 : 9 W.E.P.C. 9 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 107 : 2 Sar. P.O.J. 320 : 20 B.B. 177 it was pointed out that Courts should have regard to the loose way in which pleadings are prepared in India, and should, as far as possible, allow amendment of the pleadings, in order to avoid a claim being barred by the Statute of Limitation. This is quite consistent with the view taken in Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394 : 56 L.J.Q.B. 621 : 35 W.E. 820, and we are certainly bound to follow this dictum of the Judicial Committee in preference to the decision of the Master of the Rolls in Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394 : 56 L.J.Q.B. 621 : 35 W.E. 820.