SURYA SEEDS Vs. V RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the District Forum allowing the amendment of the pleadings.

(2.) THE Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the whole complexion of the complaint has changed because of the proposed amendment and that the order of the District Forum has, therefore, to be set aside. Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. , AIR 1957 SC 363 in support of her stand. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267, it has been held in paragraph 5 by the Supreme Court as follows: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. 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. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel, AIR 1957 SC 363, this is what has been observed that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions, (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. Indeed, if in a particular case, the plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, but the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test, therefore, stil remains the same; can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not?

(3.) THE District Forum in this case has followed the decision of the National Commission, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court and also the decision of the Haryana State Commission. The District Forum has found that by reason of the amendment, no new case is sought to be put forward by the complainant though details running to 4 pages are sought to be incorporated, the ultimate prayer remains the same. No new cause of action is introduced.