The Managing Director vs Sukhwinder Singh and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 27.9.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, allowing the application of Respondent-Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that Respondent-Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the office order dated 9.5.2003 passed by Respondent-Defendant No. 4 and further action of the Defendants by not regularizing the services of the Plaintiffs on the respective posts of drivers and further not making the payment of complete salary by Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 without making deductions as mentioned in the plaint and further action of Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 by not granting the benefit at par with other regularly appointed drivers to the Plaintiffs are illegal, null and void, ultra vires, mala fide, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations governing the services of the Plaintiffs and notwithstanding the said illegal order/action the services of the Plaintiffs are entitled to be regularised on their respective posts of drivers and also entitled for payment of complete salary without making any deduction and also entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges including salary at par with their counterparts with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 to regularise the services of the Plaintiffs on their respective posts of drivers and also make the payment of complete salary without making any deductions and also award all rights, benefits and privileges including salary at par with counter-parts and further directing Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 to make the payment of monthly salary directly to the Plaintiffs without any deductions and not through Defendant No. 2 and for permanent injunction restraining Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 from making the payment of salary through Defendant No. 2 to the Plaintiffs and further restraining the Defendants for making any type of deductions from the salary of the Plaintiffs.

The suit was contested by Petitioner-Defendant. Issues were framed. An application was filed by Respondent-Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by learned trial Court, vide impugned order, relevant para of which reads as under:

Heard. In the present case in hand the Plaintiffs now want to challenge the orders dated 9.12.2009, 11.12.2009 and 4.1.2010 passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The fact that efendants have passed these orders have not been denied by the Defendants. This Court is of considered view that it is necessary to amend the plaint for reaching at the right conclusion of the case. Moreover, these are subsequent events which are relevant to the case in hand. It is settled law that all the amendments should be allowed which satisfy mainly two conditions, i.e., (a) of not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. But this is not so in the present case in hand. No irreparable loss will be caused to the other party and it is also settled principle of law that courts should be liberal in granting prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In the present case in hand no injustice is caused to the other party neither any prejudice is being caused to the Defendant. Hence, amendment is allowed so as to reach at the right conclusion of the case and also if amendment is not allowed it will increase in multiplicity of suits. Hence, in the interest of justice, the application is liable to be allowed and disposed of accordingly. Now to come up on 29.10.2010 for filing of amended plaint.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of trial in view of the recent amendment in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that amendment is not necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy in dispute and hence an illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.

However, perusal of file shows that orders dated 9.12.2009, 11.12.2009 and 4.1.2009 have been passed by Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 during the pendency of the suit. Hence, Respondent-Plaintiffs have sought amendment of plaint only to incorporate the said subsequent events, which had taken place during the pendency of the suit.

Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004(1) RCR 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.