Charan Singh and Others vs Sardul Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The amendment of the plaint allowed by the trial Court is what is sought to be challenged in revision here.

The Plaintiffs sought a decree for possession of the land in suit on the averment that many years earlier it had been sold by their ancestors. The sale was challenged under custom by Labh Kaur and Dasondha Singh. This suit was later compromised between the parties and in terms thereof the sale was converted into a mortgage and it was agreed that the Plaintiff would be entitled to this land after the death of Labh Kaur on payment of Rs. 6,500/-. Labh Kaur having died, the Plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession on payment of said sum of Rs. 6,500/-

The Plaintiffs sought amendment of the plaint to claim the relief asked for also by redemption of the mortgage of the land in suit created by the compromise in the earlier suit and further to fix value of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 6,500/-. The suit was that the stage of arguments when this amendment was sought. Amendment of the plaint, as prayed for, was allowed by the trial court. This is what is sought to be assailed now on the ground that as a matter of law, a suit for possession, cannot by amendment, be allowed to be converted into one for possession by redemption of mortgage Reliance in his behalf being sought to be placed upon kola v. Mst Lachmi 1912 R.L.R. 1, Dal Dahodur v. Sarabjit Tewari AIR 1931 Ord 378 and Vir Singh v. Surta Singh and Anr. 1959 61 R.L.R. 443.

A reading of these authorities would show that they bear no resemblance to the facts here and do not in any manner support the point canvassed in the context of the nature and circumstances of the present case. There can be no escape from the conclusion that the amendment sought and allowed here was merely of a formal nature which does not, in any manner, change the nature of the suit or introduce any new cause of action inconsistent with the case already set up. In this behalf, it deserves not that in the suit as originally filed possession was claimed on payment of Rs. 6,500/- only the word ''redemption'' was missing and this omission is what is now being removed. The nature of suit can, be on means, be said to have been changed thereby.

Further, it is also pertinent note that there was no suggestion here that if the suit had been filed on the date when amendment of the plaint was sought, it would have been barred by limitation.

The other ground on which the amendment allowed was sought to be questioned was that it had been allowed at a very belated stage of the proceedings, namely, at the stage of arguments. This is again a contention devoid of merit as it is well settled that an amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stag and indeed if the interests at justice so require, amendment can be allowed even in appeal.

This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.