Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir And Anr. vs Fehmida Begam on 6 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)MPHT143, 2002 A I H C 971, (2002) 1 MPLJ 482, (2002) 2 RENCJ 87, (2002) 1 RENCR 405, (2002) 2 RENTLR 56, (2002) 1 MPHT 143
JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a revision by the defendants against the order dated 15-12-2000 of the Second Additional District Judge, Second in Civil Suit No. 43-A of 2000 by which plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment in the plaint has been allowed.
2. The plaintiff instituted the civil suit in the year 1993 for eviction of the defendants under Section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and for arrears of rent. In the plaint description of the defendant No. 1 is "Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir through Secretary, Raghuraj Singh Baghel". It was pleaded that the suit accommodation had been let out to the defendants for running a school by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and it is required bona fide by her for occupation as a residence for herself and for the members of her family. The suit was being contested by the defendants. Both the parties adduced their evidence. Their arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment.
3. The plaintiff submitted an application on 15-11-2000 under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment in the plaint. Through the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to correct the description of the defendant No. 1. After the words "Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir" the words "Swami Ramkrishna Param Hans Bal Kalyan Samiti, Seoni" were sought to be added. Through this amendment the plaintiff further wanted to plead that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by her for carrying on the business of a hotel and also for the business of her two sons. These proposed amendments were objected to by the defendants but these have been allowed by the Trial Court by the impugned order on payment of Rs. 750/- as cost.
4. In this revision by the defendants two points have been raised on their behalf: (a) As the case was closed for judgment by the Trial Court it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC and (b) the proposed amendment changes the name of the defendant No. 1 and the ground for eviction and, therefore, it could not be allowed. These are the points which arise for determination in this revision.
Point (a):
Order 6 Rule 17, CPC provides that the Court may "at any stage of the proceedings" allow either party to amend his pleadings. It is argued that after the case was closed for judgment there remained no stage of the proceedings and, therefore, the Trial Court could not allow the amendment. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the decision of this Court in Dhirendra v. State Bank of India (1993 MPLJ 607). It has been held in this case that where a suit was closed for judgment in Trial Court and an application for amendment was filed before the pronouncement of judgment, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC. A perusal of this judgment shows that the earlier decision of this Court in Badri Prasad v. S. Kripal Singh (AIR 1981 MP 228) was not brought to the notice of the Bench. The dictum of this Court in that case was as follows :
"The suit is commenced on the presentation of plaintiff as is obtainable from Order 4 Rule 1, CPC instituted as "Suit to be commenced by plaint" and is disposed of so far as the Trial Court is concerned. On the pronouncement of judgment under Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC. This being the position regarding the commencement of the suit and its termination in the Trial Court, in the light of the discussion contained in the preceding paragraph of this order, the irresistible conclusion is that delivery of judgment by the Trial Court is a stage in the proceeding. In this view of the matter, it can safely be held that because of the expression "at any stage of the proceedings" employed in Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the Court is competent to allow either party to alter or amend his pleading any time before the judgment is pronounced, as till then the Judge has the seisin over the case and is not functus officio."
5. In case the aforesaid decision of this Court had been brought to the notice of the Bench which Dhirendra 's case (supra) the Bench would have either agreed with the said dictum laid down earlier or in case of any disagreement with the earlier view, the case would have been referred to Larger Bench as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munnuswamy Gounder (AIR 1984 SC 1789) and Eknath v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 1177). In Badri Prasad's case (supra) decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (AIR 1964 SC 993) which interpreted Order 9 Rule 7, CPC was held to be inapplicable to the construction of the words "at any stage of the proceedings" in Order 6 Rule 17, CPC.
6. In Narendra Singh v. Maltidevi (1993 MPLJ 610) another Bench of this Court following Badri Prasad's case (supra) held that the Court can entertain an application tor amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC even if the case is reserved for delivery of judgment. The same view has again been taken in Kamta Prasad Vs. Vidyawati (1995 MPLJ 127).
7. In view of the above decisions the law laid down in Badri Prasad's case (supra) and followed in the two later decisions has to be treated correct and it must be held that the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment is legally maintainable even at the stage when the arguments have been heard and the case has been closed for judgment. The amendment at that stage should be allowed only if it is really necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parlies and it does not work injustice to the other side. The discretion in this respect must be exercised judiciously after considering all the aspects.
Point (b):
The suit was originally filed against "Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir". It is not a legal entity or juristic personality. It is owned as subsequently revealed, by "Swami Ramkrishna Param Hans Bal Kalyan Samiti, Sconi" which is a registered society under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973. Therefore, the rectification of this mistake was necessary and the Trial Court has rightly allowed such correction to be made even at the !aie stage of the suit.
8. The suit accommodation was admittedly let out originally for non-residential purpose and, therefore, the suit for eviction under the scheme of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Act to meet the residential requirement of the landlord was not maintainable. The plaintiff through the proposed amendment wanted to covert the ground for eviction from clause (e) to Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. It is well settled after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chhotelal v. Akbarali (AIR 1983 MP 50) that there is nothing in the language of Section 12 (1) which forbids addition of a ground for eviction in a suit for eviction already instituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act. Another ground for eviction can be set-up by amendment of the plaint. In the present case, the Trial Court cannot be said to have exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in allowing amendment for converting the ground of eviction from Clause (e) to Clause (f). That was in the interest of justice and that would avoid multiplicity of the suits. The opposite-party has been compensated by costs of a substantial amount.
9. The latest guideline for dealing with the application for amendment in the pleadings is to be found in the decision of the Supreme Court in B.K.N. Pilliai v. P. Pillai (AIR 2000 SC 614) where it has been observed that the purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just. 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 this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.
10. In view of the above discussion, this revision is dismissed in limine.
11. Civil Revision dismissed.