Hathija Rani and Others vs S. Nasira Babu and Another

S.M. Sidickk, J.—The revision petitioners are the defendants/respondents and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs/petitioners before the

lower court.

The revision petition is directed as against the order dated 11.9.1998 in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 in O.S.No. 197 of 1995 on the file of the

Additional District Munsif''s Court at Ramanathapuram.

The application in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 in O.S.No. 197 of 1995 on the file of Additional. District Munsif''s Court at Ramanathapuram is filed

under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the plaint as well as the description of property as set out in the amendment application. It was

opposed by the revision petitioners/defendants herein by filing a counter statement. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the

learned Additional District Munsif of Ramanathapuram allowed the amendment application in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 on 11.9.1998 against which

the present revision petition is filed.

When the revision petition came up for admission, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the proposed

amendment sought for by the respondents/ plaintiffs herein is nothing but an introduction of a new case and so this revision petition must be

admitted. The above contention is negatived by a decision of our High Court reported in Srimathy Vs. Executive Engineer and Administrative

Officer, Tirunelveli Housing Unit, , wherein it was pointed out that a new cause of action can well be allowed to be taken by way of an amendment

provided it is an alternative plea. In one other decision of our Madras High Court reported in Sanjivi Devar v. Manicka Devar (1966)1 M.L.J.

561, it was pointed out it is now well settled that a court should adopt a liberal attitude in allowing amendment or pleadings. To the similar effect is

the decision of Our Madras High Court reported in Chinnaswami Naicker Vs. Kandasami Gounder and Others, , wherein it was observed that

amendment of pleadings should be freely allowed at whatever stage it is asked for, but this can only be subject to the question of limitation.

In yet another decision of the Supreme court reported in Nichhalbhai Vallabhai and Others Vs. Jaswantlal Zinabhai and Others, , it was laid

down as follows:

As the object of the rule in Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for allowing amendments to the plaint was to avoid multiplicity of suits, this was a proper

case in which the court should allow the plaint to be amended, otherwise if the amendment were refused, the plaintiff would have to bring another

suit.

Therefore, it is open to the plaintiff to plead a new cause of action or to set up a new case provided it is not barred by the law of limitation. In the

present case it is not the case of the revision petitioners defendants that the proposed amendment as set out in the amendment application filed by

the respondents/plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation. Therefore the lower court was right in allowing the amendment application which not only

seeks to amend the pleadings in the plaint but also the description of property as well as to include the alternative relief of possession.

One another contention that was advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners/defendants herein is that the respondents/plaintiff are not entitled

to seek any amendment in the description of property mentioned in the plaint unless the plaint document was rectified, and the amendment asked

for is not changing the description of property but also the location and nature of the property. Such a contention was negatived by our Madras

High Court in another decision reported in Umsala Bibi and Others Vs. M. Jayaraman, , wherein it was stated as follows:

Amendment/of plaint seeking to change the survey number is permissible.

In yet another decision of the Supreme Court in Gopi Pilial v. Dr. Swamy (1990)1 L.W. 363, it was laid down that the plaintiff sought an

amendment of the plaint in order to add the relief of possession in case he was not found to be in possession of the property in dispute, it can be

allowed even after the amendment was sought for, after a number of witnesses were examined.

In one another decision Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in Smt. Batni and Others Vs. Shri Tej Singh, , it was held that the amendment

seeking the alternative relief of possession can be allowed even if it deprives the defendant of his plea as to the maintainability of the suit.

Applying the above said legal principles to the facts of the present case even if the proposed amendment sought by the respondents/plaintiffs

herein will change the description of property and also the location and nature of the property and the alternative relief of possession will deprive

the defendants about the maintainability of the suit, even then the amendment can be allowed subject only to the question of limitation. At the risk of

repetition it must be stated that it is not the contention of the revision petitioners/ defendants that the proposed amendment is barred, under any one

of the Articles of the Limitation Act of 1963. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment application

in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I am to hold that this revision petition is devoid of merits, and the same has to be

dismissed without costs, and the fair and decretal order assessed by the Additional District Munsif of Ramanathapuram in I.A"" No. 1183 of 1998

in O.S.No. 197 of 1995 dated 11.9.1998 are to be confirmed, and consequently, I answer this point as against the revision petitioners/defendants

and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed without costs. The fair and decretal order dated 11.9.1998 passed in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 in

O.S.No. 197 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Munsif''s Court at Ramanathapuram are confirmed.

Consequently the stay petition in C.M.P.No. 17085 of 1998 is also dismissed as unnecessary.