2015 (1) TMI 1398 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows amendment in property valuation dispute, emphasizing justice and real issues

Mount Mary Enterprises Versus M/s. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and directed the trial court to allow the appellant to amend the plaint to reflect the correct ... Amendment application rejected - plaintiff, realized that market value of the property in question was around ₹ 1,20,00,000/- and therefore, filed an application for amending the plaint - Specific performance of a contract in relation to the suit property - Held that:- As per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the amendment application should be normally granted unless by virtue of the amendment nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the defendant - In the instant case, the nature of the suit was not to be changed by virtue of granting the amendment application because the suit was for specific performance and initially the property had been valued at ₹ 13,50,000/- but as the market value of the property was actually ₹ 1,20,00,000/-, the appellant-plaintiff had submitted an application for amendment so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint. The main reason assigned by the trial court for rejection of the amendment application was that upon enhancement of the valuation of the suit property, the suit was to be transferred to the High Court on its original side - this is not a reason for which the amendment application should have been rejected. The amendment application made by the plaintiff should have been granted, especially in view of the fact that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was initially undervalued in the plaint and by virtue of the amendment application, the plaintiff wanted to correct the error and wanted to place correct market value of the suit property in the plaint - the amendment application should not have been rejected by the trial court and the High Court should not have confirmed the order of rejection - Appeal allowed. Issues:- Rejection of amendment application for valuation of suit property- Interpretation of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code- Consideration of prejudice to the defendant in granting the amendmentAnalysis:The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding a property initially valued at Rs. 13,50,000. Realizing the actual market value was Rs. 1,20,00,000, an amendment application was made to correct the valuation in the plaint. The trial court rejected the amendment application, leading to a writ petition challenging the rejection. The appellant argued that the amendment was made in good faith, with no harm to the defendant, and was willing to pay additional court fees. The respondent contended that the amendment was belated and aimed at transferring the suit to the High Court. The Court considered Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, stating amendments should be granted unless they change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the defendant. The defendant had previously claimed undervaluation of the property, supporting the need for the amendment. The Court cited legal precedent emphasizing that amendments should be allowed unless they cause injustice or injury to the other party.The trial court's rejection was based on the potential transfer of the suit to the High Court due to increased valuation, which the Supreme Court deemed an insufficient reason. Referring to legal principles, the Court highlighted that amendments should be permitted to determine the real issues in dispute without causing injustice. As the plaintiff admitted undervaluation and sought to correct it through the amendment, the Court found no valid reason for rejection. Consequently, the High Court's decision confirming the rejection was set aside, and the trial court was directed to allow the appellant to amend the plaint to reflect the correct valuation of the property. No costs were awarded in the judgment.