Plaint amendment for vacant possession upheld where it clarified existing relief and did not alter the suit's nature.

Amendment of the plaint adding a specific prayer for vacant possession after demolition of construction was upheld because it only clarified an existing claim for mandatory injunction and restoration of possession. Since the suit was filed before the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came into force, the post-commencement restriction did not apply. The amendment was treated as necessary for a just decision and not as changing the nature of the suit. The Court also rejected reliance on Article 113 of the Limitation Act, holding that Article 65 governed a title-based suit, while leaving any limitation defence open before the Trial Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inserting a specific relief for vacant possession after demolition of construction, was liable to be interfered with on the grounds of commencement of trial and limitation.

Analysis: The amendment merely made specific an existing relief for mandatory injunction and restoration of possession already pleaded in the suit. The suit was instituted before the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 came into force, so the post-commencement restriction did not apply. The proposed amendment was found necessary for a just decision of the controversy and did not change the nature of the suit. The reliance on Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was rejected because the suit was based on title and Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was the applicable provision. The Court also held that any limitation defence could still be raised and considered by the Trial Court.

Conclusion: The amendment order was upheld and no interference was called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendments necessary for the just decision of the case and not changing the nature of the suit should ordinarily be allowed, and the bar under the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 does not apply to suits instituted before 1 July 2002.

---