Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as Manager of the Hindu undivided family to which the business belonged; the says he sued on behalf of the family in the business name. The observations made by the High Court that the application for amendment of the plaint could not be granted, because there was no averment therein that the misdescription was on account of a bona fide mistake, and on that account the suit must fail, cannot be accepted. In our view, there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to a bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. The power to grant kvm CHS55.14 amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.

20. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that allowing and rejecting an application for amendment of a plaint is really the discretion of the Court and amendment of the plaint also should not be refused on technical grounds. In this connection reliance can be placed on a decision of this Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon MANU/SC/0016/1969 :

[1970]1SCR22 . In paragraph 8 of the said decision this Court observed that :

Paragraph 9 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court read thus :-

9. After remand the learned Single Judge reconsidered the second appeal and dismissed the same. The learned Single Judge extensively dealt with the question whether the amendment made in the plaint would relate back to the date of institution of the suit or the same will be treated as effective from the date of this Court's order and held: [Amrik Singh case, RCR (Civil) pp.506-09, paras 8 - 12] " 8. The admitted facts now stand that the Plaintiff and vendor are the co-sharers. The fate of the present appeal hinges upon the question "whether the amendment allowed by the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 10.11.1994 will kvm CHS55.14 operate from the date of the order or is deemed to have been incorporated as a part of the plaint from the date of the institution of the suit. If the amendment is considered to be part of the plaint from the date of institution of the suit, the Plaintiff is bound to succeed, otherwise the suit shall fail if the amendment is found to become operative from the date of the order of the Apex Court allowing amendment. It is settled principle of law that at that time of consideration of the plea of amendment, the court is not required to go into the question of merits of the amendment sought. A party seeking the amendment may ultimately succeed or fail on the basis of the amendment is not the relevant consideration at the time the plea of amendment is to be considered. Only consideration at the time is whether such an amendment is necessary, relevant and relate to the controversy involved in the lis. Hon'ble Supreme Court by allowing the amendment of the plaint vide its order dated 10.11.1994 observed that the amendment should have been allowed, on the basis of the admitted facts. Whether the suit is barred by limitation or is within limitation, all depends upon the effective date of amendment. Mr. Goel, learned Counsel for the Appellants has referred to the judgment passed in the case of Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal MANU/SC/1455/1996: 1996 PLJ 237. In this case, the parties had entered into an agreement to sell. A suit for perpetual injunction was instituted on 23.12.1987. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed on 17.7.1989 for converting the suit for injunction into the one for specific performance of agreement dated 18.8.1984. The amendment was allowed on 25.8.1989. A plea was raised that the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.

25. Supreme Court in case of Puran Ram (supra) has held that whether to allow or to reject an application for amendment of a plaint is at the discretion of the court and the amendment of the plaint should not be refused on technical grounds. Supreme court in case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal (supra) has held that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules or procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of cost. It is held that however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. It is held that all amendments should be permitted as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties unless by permitting the amendment injustice may result to the other side. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.