2015 (8) TMI 1407 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court upholds amendment in Civil Suit for compensation in illegal mining case

The High Court upheld the District Judge's order allowing the amendment of the plaint in Civil Suit No.3/2008. The proposed amendment, including the ... Illegal mining and extraction of iron ore - permanent injunction suit - amendment sought to be introduced by para 14(B) and prayer clause (bb) - Held that:- In the present case, as indicated above, the suit is basically filed on the allegation that the petitioner is engaged in illegal mining and extraction of iron ore from property survey no.7 of village Ambelim and the relief claimed in the suit is permanent injunction against the petitioner from carrying out any such mining activity or extracting the iron ore, or from removing or transporting the same The normal rule would be that the Court may at any stage of the proceeding may allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings,when such amendments may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Thus the proviso can come into play only, when the Court comes to the conclusion that the party has not approached the Court with due diligence. The proviso would not come in the way of grant of amendment when the Court finds that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso in fact aims at balancing the conflicting considerations for expeditious disposal of the suit on one hand and a genuine need of a party to effect amendments. Coming back to the present case, the proposed amendment as noticed earlier is only an amplification of the pleadings already on record in which there are some subsequent developments and the quantification of the damages. As noticed earlier, it is claimed that the iron ore which was already extracted was removed in the interregnum when the restraint placed on the petitioner was removed by this Court, while dismissing the Appeal From order and was restored when the review application came to be allowed. If that be so, it cannot be said that the third respondent had acted without due diligence. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the order allowing amendment of the plaint.2. Whether the proposed amendment is barred by limitation.3. Relevance and necessity of the proposed amendment for deciding the real controversy.4. Application of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the Order Allowing Amendment of the Plaint:The petitioner challenged the order dated 21/1/2015 allowing the third respondent's application for amendment of the plaint in Civil Suit No.3/2008. The third respondent had sought to add new paragraphs and a prayer clause to the plaint, which the District Judge allowed. The petitioner opposed this, particularly the addition of para 14(B) and prayer clause (bb), arguing that it introduced a new claim for compensation of Rs. 4 crores, which was time-barred and irrelevant to the controversy.2. Whether the Proposed Amendment is Barred by Limitation:The District Judge concluded that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which should be assessed during the trial. The Judge found that the amendment was based on the same cause of action related to the mining concession and was necessary due to subsequent developments. The petitioner could raise the limitation issue at an appropriate stage during the trial.3. Relevance and Necessity of the Proposed Amendment for Deciding the Real Controversy:The proposed amendment aimed to quantify the damages for illegal mining and removal of iron ore by the petitioner. The District Judge found that this amendment was necessary to address the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The amendment did not change the fundamental nature of the suit but provided specific details about the damages claimed.4. Application of Proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC:The proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC states that no amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. The District Judge found that the amendment was necessitated by subsequent developments, and the third respondent had acted with due diligence. Therefore, the proviso did not bar the amendment.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the District Judge's order allowing the amendment, finding no merit in the petitioner's objections. The amendment was deemed necessary for deciding the real controversy and was not barred by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC. The petition was dismissed, and the contentions on merits were kept open for trial.