2012 (9) TMI 931 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court permits amendment of plaint to clarify issues, emphasizing fair trial and efficiency.

Abdul Rehman & Anr. Versus Mohd. Ruldu & Ors

Abdul Rehman & Anr. Versus Mohd. Ruldu & Ors - 2012 (8) SCR 9222012 (11) SCC 341, 2012 (10) JT 97, 2012 (9) SCALE 582 Issues Involved:1. Amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Whether the proposed amendments alter the claim/cause of action.3. Prejudice to the respondents due to the amendment.4. Necessity of the amendment to determine the real questions in controversy.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:The appellants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the application on 06.06.2007, which was confirmed by the High Court on 13.11.2007. The Supreme Court emphasized that parties are permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage to determine the real questions in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court noted that the original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 but restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 with a proviso that restricts amendments after the trial has commenced unless due diligence is demonstrated.2. Whether the proposed amendments alter the claim/cause of action:The appellants initially sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against forcible dispossession. Respondents claimed ownership based on sale deeds dated 25.08.2003. The appellants argued that these sale deeds were void and sought their cancellation through the amendment. The Supreme Court found that the factual matrix for the relief sought was already set out in the un-amended plaint, and the relief of cancellation did not change the nature of the suit. The Court held that if the necessary factual basis is already in the plaint, the relief sought by amendment does not alter the suit's nature.3. Prejudice to the respondents due to the amendment:The Supreme Court assessed whether the respondents would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments. It concluded that the reliefs claimed by the appellants were not barred in law and that allowing the amendments would avoid multiplicity of litigation. The Court observed that the amendments were necessitated due to the High Court's earlier order indicating that an application for ad-interim injunction without seeking cancellation of the sale deeds was not maintainable. The Court found that the respondents, being transferees under the sale deed and nephews of the appellants, were aware of the void nature of the sale deeds and thus not bona fide purchasers.4. Necessity of the amendment to determine the real questions in controversy:The Supreme Court reiterated that amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy should be allowed if they do not change the suit's basic nature. The Court cited previous decisions, emphasizing that amendments should be permitted to serve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation. The Court concluded that the proposed amendment to include a relief of declaration of title, in addition to the permanent injunction, was to protect the appellants' interests and did not change the suit's basic nature.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court, allowing the application for amendment. It directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months, allowing the respondents to file an additional written statement if desired. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.