Tulsi Ram (deceased) through his LRs vs H.P.P.W.D. Through its Secretary & Anr

Satyen Vaidya, J

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, in CMA No.233/6 of 2023 , whereby the application for amendment of plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short “Code”) has been dismissed.

Petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. A suit has been filed for damages/compensation against the defendants on the premise that the defendant while raising construction of road has unauthorisedly utilized the land belonging to the plaintiff and consequently the plaintiff has been divested of the right to sow his crop on the suit land.

The original plaint was instituted in the year 2009 and the damages for the last three years prior to the filing of the suit were claimed.

The defendant is contesting the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment in the plaint to the effect that even during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has not removed the debris from the suit land and in such a manner the cause of action to claim further damages for the intervening period is continuing. On such assertion, plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint by adding para-7A and by substituting para 12(ii) of the plaint.

The application was contested by the defendant and learned trial Court vide impugned order has dismissed the same.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the learned trial Court has rejected the prayer for amendment on the ground that the application if allowed, will amount to amendment of whole suit/plaint and will also change the nature of the entire suit. No other discernible reason is available on record.

One of the cardinal purpose for amendment of the pleadings is to allow the parties to bring on record all the material which is necessary for adjudication of the suit. In this case, what the plaintiffs had sought was to incorporate the facts which had taken place during the pendency of the suit which were relatable to the original cause of action. As noticed above, the initial suit is for damages for a particular period preceding the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff has averred that during the pendency of the suit the same cause continued as the defendant has not removed the encroachment. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the amendment will change the nature of the suit is not sustainable. The cause of action remains the same.

From the nature of the amendment, sought by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the amendment is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute inter se the parties. Rather if the amendment is not allowed, it may lead to multiplicity of litigation.

No doubt, the defendant has every right to contest the plea raised by the plaintiff by way of amended pleadings. Thus, by reserving such right of the defendant, the amendment sought by the plaintiff could have been allowed.

In result, the impugned order calls for interference and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the application under Order 6, Rule

17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint is ordered to be allowed subject to all just exceptions. Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to the cost. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.