Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mettu Naresh Kumar Reddy vs Nellore Ramamma on 1 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(4)ALT420
Author: K.B. Siddappa
Bench: K.B. Siddappa
ORDER K.B. Siddappa, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 6/85 in O.S. No. 199/85 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kovur.
2. The said Interlocutory Application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint in the manner given below;-
(i) In para 3 of the plaint, after the words "grant of" the following may be inserted: "declaration and".
(ii) In para 4 of the plaint, after the words "grant of", the following maybe inserted: "declaration and".
(iii) In para 5 of the plaint, after the words "relief of" the following may be inserted: "declaration and".
(iv) In para 6A of the plaint, after the words "granting", the following may be inserted: "declaration and".
3. The said application was resisted by the respondents in the petition.
4. After hearing both the sides the learned Munsif held that the proposed amendment, i.e., relief of declaration, is barred by limitation by virtue of Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the amendment cannot be granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed directing the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought does not change the nature of the suit. The plaintiff can amend the plaint at any time as is envisaged in Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The relief sought does not introduce any new cause of action. It is based on the old facts.
7. The petitioner stated that originally his father was a party to the suit. The petitioner came on record only on 23-6-1994. He noticed that his father did not pray for declaration of title along with mandatory injunction. Consequently he was compelled to file the petition. However, the petition is within 3 years from the date the petitioner came on record. There is no question of the petition becoming time barred. He further submitted that if the circumstances permit and no prejudice is caused to the other side, the amendment can be allowed even after expiry of limitation for a complete and effective disposal of the case. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"7. It is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neale, (1887) 19 QBD 394. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of anew cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: See: Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 Ind. App. 255 (AIR 1921 PC 50) and L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., .
8. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes {Cropper v. Smith, (1884) 26 Ch.D. 700 (710-711)) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba (1909) ILR 33 Com. 644 at p.651, approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda, ."
8. He also brought to my notice a bench judgment of this Court in Konduru Seshu Reddi v. Vemareddy Rama Raghavareddy and others, . In this case a Bench of this Court held:
"In two recent decisions of the Supreme Court, Leach and Co., Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., (S) and Pirgouda Hongunda Patil v. Kaigunda Shidgunda Patil, (S) their Lordships have laid down that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions namely (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. Their Lordships observed that even in a case where a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application for amendment, the Court would allow the amendment if that is required in the interests of justice."
9. In Pendyala Narasimham v. Pendyala Venkata Narasimha Rao, a Bench of this Court held:
"31. It is now well recognised that amendments should be allowed in order to effectively adjudicate upon the real issues arising in a case. It would be permissible to allow an amendment even if a fresh suit is barred on the amended claim if special circumstances exist. It was pointed out in Charan Das v. Amir Khan 47, Ind. App. 255: (AIR 192l PC 50) by the Privy Council:
"That there was full power to make the amendment cannot be disputed and though such a power should not as a rule be exercised where the effect is to take away from a defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases where such considerations are outweighed by special circumstances of the case."
"33. It is seen that Order 6 Rule 17 confers wide powers on a Court and though it should be exercised with great care and caution, even in cases where the defendant had acquired a right by lapse of time, it would be permissible for a Court to allow an amendment if the circumstances and justice require it As pointed out by the Privy Council in Ma Shew Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung, AIR 1922 PC 249 all rules of Courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, that they should be made to serve that purpose and that powers of amendment should be 1iberally exercised. A party should be permitted to invoke Order 6 Rule 17 if substantial matters which constitute the title of all the parties are touched by the issues and have been fully put in evidence and form the main subject of discussion in the Court, though such a claim might not be based upon the pleadings. When a party claims certain property on the score of exclusive title therein residing in him, there is no reason why he should not be permitted to ask for a portion thereof if it is based on the same title and if the ground upon which he is entitled to a lesser relief is not inconsistent with the case set up by him in the original plaint or would lead to the determination of the issues which would embarrass him."
10. On the ratio of the above judgments, it no longer remains a doubt that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Such amendments should not be based on new facts and new cause of action. At the same time the amendment should not cause prejudice to the other side. If the amendment amounts to merely a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation.
11. The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased 5 cents of land which is the CDG channel along with Ac. 1-54 cents from one Gundra Venkataramana Reddy in the name of the petitioner. His father was cultivating the land and other lands with the help of the water drawn through CDG channel. His father was Kartha of the joint family. There is no conflict of interest between him and his father. His father had only prayed for mandatory injunction to restore the channel portion marked as 'CDG' in the plaint sketch. After the petitioner was brought on record he found the prayer insufficient. Therefore, he sought declaration of title also in addition to mandatory injunction.
12. This new relief is not alien to the facts of the present case. It is only in a way of additional relief the petitioner seeks amendment. The respondents will not be put to prejudice if the amendment is allowed. It is also true that the arguments are over in this case. But however, this relief has to be allowed for a complete and effective disposal of the case.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and in the circumstances without costs.