Plaint amendment for benami plea allowed where later statute created the basis and no new cause of action arose.

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was permitted to add a plea based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, because that statutory ground was unavailable when the suit was originally filed. The court held that the proposed pleading introduced only an additional basis for relief and did not create a new cause of action or a new case. Applying the settled test that amendments should be allowed when they are necessary to decide the real controversy and the other side can be compensated by costs, the amendment was allowed and the amended plaint was directed to be taken on record after payment of costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint should be amended under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to incorporate a plea based on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and whether such amendment introduced a new cause of action or was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties.

Analysis: The amendment was sought to add a plea that the defendant held the property in a fiduciary capacity for the plaintiffs, a ground said to arise from the later enactment of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Court found that this ground could not have been pleaded when the suit was filed because the statute had not then been enacted. It held that the proposed amendment only introduced an additional ground and did not set up a new case or new cause of action. The Court further applied the settled principle that amendments should be permitted when they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000 as a condition precedent, and the amended plaint was directed to be taken on record after payment.

---