Pleadings amendment in property suit allowed where only extent and boundaries were corrected without changing title or cause of action.

An amendment to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was found permissible where it only reduced the extent of the same suit property and corrected its boundaries and measurements. The court held that the proposed change did not substitute a different property, alter the source of title, or introduce a new cause of action; the suit remained one for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Delay alone was not enough to refuse amendment in the absence of unavoidable prejudice. The refusal to amend was therefore set aside, and the amendment was treated as bona fide.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by restricting the claim to a lesser extent of the same suit property, was liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay, change in nature of the suit, and introduction of a new cause of action.

Analysis: The plaint originally sought declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property in the same survey number. The proposed amendment did not substitute a different property or a different source of title, but only reduced the claimed extent and supplied the correct boundaries and measurement. The nature of the suit remained one for declaration and injunction, and the cause of action also remained unchanged. A delay in seeking amendment, by itself, was not a sufficient ground to refuse relief where no new cause of action was introduced and no prejudice incapable of compensation was shown. The Court also noted that granting a decree for the correct or lesser extent is a matter of final relief and does not bar amendment to bring the true extent and boundaries before the Court.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be bona fide and permissible, and the refusal to amend was set aside.

---