Delhi High Court
Alaknanda Properties P. Ltd. vs Sh. Balbir Singh on 3 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 A I H C 452, (2002) 65 DRJ 331 (2003) 1 CURCC 62, (2003) 1 CURCC 62
Author: Mukundakam Sharma
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma
JUDGMENT Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. By this order I propose to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint.
2. The plaintiff herein filed the suit in the year 1995 praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and all other persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff company of the suit properties. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that defendants 1 to 7 were the owners of the suit properties, which were sold and alienated in favor of the plaintiff after receiving full and final payment of the entire sale consideration. It is also stated that the aforesaid sale and conveyance took place under an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant 1 to 7, which was followed by execution of general power of attorney in favor of the duly constituted nominee/officer of the plaintiff company by the respective defendants. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff company was also handed over possession of entire suit land by the defendants and that the plaintiff duly assumed possession of the same on various dates from the defendants. It is further stated in the plaint that immediately after receiving possession of the suit property the plaintiff company constructed boundary wall over the suit property and they planted various types of trees and large variety of vegetables on the suit property and in that manner the plaintiff company continues to be in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit property. It is averred that on 13.8.95 some persons, claiming to represent one Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj came to the suit properties and threatened the watchman of the plaintiff company on the ground that Sh. Bhardwaj had allegedly purchased some portion of the suit land. A criminal case was also instituted by the plaintiff company and in view of the aforesaid position, the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. It is necessary to mention also that along with the suit an application under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the plaintiff. While issuing summons and notices to the defendants, an ad interim injunction was also passed by this court directing that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property in question. After receiving summons and notices, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement contesting the aforesaid suit.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the aforesaid application application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff contending, inter alia, that subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid suit, a part of the suit land was illegally and unauthorisedly transferred by the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to the prejudice of the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff company as its owner. A detailed description of the aforesaid alleged transfer made by the defendants to the prejudice to the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff company have been given in the application and in terms thereof the aforesaid application is filed for bringing on record the subsequent development that has taken place subsequent to filing of the suit in this court. In the application, the plaintiff has sought for amendment of the plaint in the light of such subsequent development with consequent amendment in the reliefs sought for praying for a declaration that the aforesaid transfer made behind the back of the plaintiff which is prejudicial to the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff is illegal and void and that the same be set aside.
4. The aforesaid application is contested by the defendants on the ground that if the aforesaid amendment sought by the plaintiff is allowed, the same would change the entire complexion of the suit and would alter the whole structure, content and fibre of the original case, which was a suit for permanent injunction. It was also submitted on behalf of the defendants that if the aforesaid amendment is allowed, the same would introduce a new cause of action in the case causing prejudice to the case of the defendants and would amount to substitution of one of action by another for which no foundation is laid down in the plaint, which was originally filed.
5. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties in respect of amendment of the plaint. I also heared the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The plaint, which was originally filed, was for seeking a decree in the nature of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff company upon the suit premises. The case of the plaintiff is that they had purchased the suit property under various documents from defendants 1 to 7 but defendant No. 8 is threatening to trespass to the land of the plaintiff. The suit was filed on 17.8.95, when an order of ad interim injunction was also passed by this court directing the parties to maintain status quo respect of the suit property. However, in the application, reference is made to Resolution No. 111 dt. 24.4.96 converting Khasra No. 1192 into agricultural land bearing No. 74 (3-6) bighas/biswas, during the course of consolidation proceedings held before the Consolidation Officer/Tehsildar at the behest of Sh. Balbir Singh. It is also stated that even subsequently i.e. after conversion of its nature and number, in the manner referred to above, the said land was further transferred by Sh. Balbir Singh, defendant No. 1, in favor of Sh. Satya Prakash Gupta vide Resolution No. 648 of 1995-1996. Reference is also made to another resolution dt. 14.8.96 wherby further transfer is made of the land bearing No. 74(3-6) formerly bearing No. 1192 (1-02) to Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, who in turn on or about September, 1996 allegedly transferred the same in favor of Sh. Dinni and Sh. Billu. Similar instances of such transfers, which are stated to be illegal and without jurisdiction, have been cited in the application.
6. On a careful perusal of the contents of the application for which the amendment is sought, it is found that whatever paragraphs and contents are sought to be incorporated by the plaintiff by way of amendment of the plaint, are development which had taken place subsequent to filing of the plaint in this court. Although the suit was filed originally seeking for a decree for permanent injunction, by way of amendment in the relief, the plaintiff has now also sought for a decree of declaration declaring such transfers made by the defendants in favor of third parties as illegal and without jurisdiction and also for cancellation of such transfers and resolutions. Therefore, if the aforesaid amendment as sought for by the plaintiff is allowed, the present suit would no longer be only a suit for decree of permanent injunction but also a suit for declaration that the alleged transfers by the defendants to third parties, subsequent to filing of the suit, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. In view of the same, it is the contention of the defendants that allowing the amendment would change the very basis of the suit originally filed by the plaintiff.
7. The principles applicable to the amendment of the plaint is well-settled. It is also settled law that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. It is the that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right but at the same time it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. In B.K. NARAYANA PILLAI V. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI , it was held by the Supreme Court that liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the cots. It was also held that technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties and that amendments are allowed in the proceedings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation. The aforesaid principle, however, has certain limitations to the extent that if a particular relief has become barred by limitation, such plea should not be allowed to be raised by way of amendment. it is settled principle of law that subsequent events to the institution of the suit, so far they are in consonance with the original cause of action, should be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment and that where amendments were sought on a acount of happening of subsequent events and it was found that by allowing the proposed amendments neither the nature of suit nor the cause of action would change, such amendment could be allowed by giving parties the opportunity to seek for moulding of the reliefs appropriately.
8. The plaintiff has sought for amendment of the plaint on the ground that subsequent to the filing of the suit, it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff company the there has been further illegal corrections of records on the basis of alleged illegal transfers by the defendants, in view of which the amendment has become necessary to do complete justice between the parties and also to effectively determine the lis between the parties. The paragraphs, which are sought to be incorporated now by the plaintiff, contain averments relating to subsequent development that had taken place after filing of the suit and also after an ad interim injunction was issued in favor of the plaintiff directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the aforesaid ad interim injunction has been violated by the defendants and in disobedience of the same defendants have proceeded to make further transfers of the suit properties with consequential changes in the records of the revenue authorities. Even contempt petitions have been filed in this court alleging willful disobedience by the defendants of the interim injunction order passed by this court. If and when further development and action take place subsequent to filing of the suit and there has been further transfers by the defendants in favor of the third parties, which is termed as illegal and void and done allegedly in violation of the interim orders passed by this court, the same are required to be incorporated in the plaint in order to decide the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. On a careful perusal of the avernments sought to be incorporated now in the plaint by way of amendment, I find that all the paragraphs relate to events which have taken place after filing of the suit. The defendants have allegedly transferred the suit property in favor of third parties after filing of the suit and consequently there have been changes in the revenue records pursuant to the aforesaid alleged illegal transfers. The same are required to be incorporated in the present suit itself instead of compelling the plaintiff to file a separate suit for such subsequent development in respect of the same suit property. Such amendment would not also cause any prejudice to the defendants. Addition of relief by way of amendment would not amount to changing the nature of the suit.
9. Considering the aforesaid position, the application filed by the plaintiff stands allowed. The paragraphs which are sought to be incorporated and mentioned in the application, are allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. The plaintiff is directed to file the amended plaint within two weeks from today, as against which defendants are allowed four weeks time thereafter to file their written statement(s). In terms of the aforesaid order the application stands disposed of.