G. Krishna Rao and Others vs G. Satynarayana

B. Manohar, J.

Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 240/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2015 made on I.A. No. 2 allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, they have filed this writ petition.

The respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 240/2014 seeking for declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and also for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and other reliefs. In the plaint it is contended that though the defendants have no right over the suit schedule property, they are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

Pursuant to the suit summons issued, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the plaint and also contended that valuation of the suit and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is contrary to law and the suit is not maintainable.

Immediately, thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the plaint. By the said application, the plaintiff wanted to delete the prayer of declaration and confine his prayer to injunctory relief only. Petitioners/defendants filed objections to the said application contending that at that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint as it would change the cause of action and nature of the suit. Petitioners/defendants further contended that the reason assigned by the plaintiff in para 2 of the affidavit accompanying I.A. No. II, that due to typographical error he has wrongly mentioned the court fee and wrongly claimed the relief of declaration and hence he wanted to confine it to injunctory relief only, is false, and sought for dismissal of the application.

The Trial Court, after considering the matter in detail and the provision under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which allows the parties to seek amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceedings subject to certain conditions and that, in the instant case, prior to the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff has filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint confining his prayer to the relief of perpetual injunction only, it was of the opinion that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was necessary and that the same would not affect the interest of the petitioners/defendants. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the application by its impugned order dated 28.03.2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this writ petition.

Shri. Rajashekar R. Gunjalli, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. No reasons are assigned by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The reasons assigned in para 2 of the affidavit does not constitute sufficient ground. Hence, he sought for setting aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, Shri Sunil Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Trial Court contending that amendment of the plaint will not affect the interest of the petitioners. It is the discretionary power exercised by the Trial Court while allowing amendment application. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other relevant records.

Records clearly disclose that originally, the plaintiff filed suit seeking for a declaration and perpetual injunction. Subsequently, after the written statement was filed by the defendants, plaintiff wanted to confine the relief only in respect of grant of perpetual injunction and hence he filed an application for amendment. The Trial Court permitted amendment of the plaint. The petitioners/defendants objected the same by contending that the Trial Court ought not to have permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint since no reasons were assigned.

A reading of Order VI Rule 17 CPC makes it very clear that the Court may at any stage of proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, no amendment shall be allowed after commencement of the trial. In the instant case, much prior to the commencement of the trial, I.A. No. II was filed seeking amendment of the plaint deleting the relief of declaration and confining it to injunctory relief only. It is for the plaintiff to decide which relief he should ask for. The amendment of the plaint will not adversely affect the interests of the defendants. Amendment has been permitted in accordance with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. I find there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of the Trial Court. Petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Any observations made during the course of the order passed by the Trial Court and also by this Court shall not be taken into consideration while passing the final order.