Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. When the description of a part of the suit property was found to be a mutual mistake, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 20th of March, 1998 seeking to amend the plaint and give the description of the suit property as Chak No.3 SLM instead of Chak No.3 SSM. Initially, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking to correct a part of the description of the suit property only in the plaint. The application for amendment of the plaint was contested by the respondent No.1. However, by an order dated 29th of August, 1998, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the plaint was filed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 12th of April, 1991 and since no prayer was made for getting the agreement amended, the application for amendment of the plaint could not be allowed. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition was filed, but later on, the same was rejected as withdrawn with liberty to raise the question in appeal against the final judgment, if such occasion arose. Since the agreement entered into by the parties contained a wrong description relating to the suit property, the appellant filed another application for amendment of the plaint seeking amendment this time not only of the plaint but also the agreement to sell dated 12th of April, 1991 so as to describe the suit property as Chak No.3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM in place of Chak No.3 SSM. In the said application for amendment, the appellant sought amendment of the agreement on the ground that under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, he was entitled to seek amendment in the plaint as well as in the agreement by which the nature of the suit, which is a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale could not be said to have been changed. This application for amendment of the plaint was also contested by the respondent No.1 contending, inter alia, that if such amendment was allowed, the nature and character of the suit would be changed and also that the appellant cannot be permitted to amend the agreement in question in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. By an order dated 25th of February, 2005, the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner, allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner, the respondent No.2, who has purchased the suit property from the respondent No.1, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.

8. On the aforesaid findings, the High Court, as noted herein earlier, had rejected the application for amendment of the plaint by passing the impugned judgment. The said order is now under challenge before us by way of a special leave petition in respect of which leave has already been granted. It may be stated at this juncture that the trial court in its discretion had allowed the application for amendment of plaint. In that situation, it needs to be seen whether it was open to the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution to reverse the said order and reject the application for amendment of plaint. We will come to this question later after we deal with the question whether the application for amendment of plaint in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the allegations made in the plaint could be rejected.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and the order of the trial court as well as the application for amendment of the plaint and other materials on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of amendment sought for, we are not in agreement with the order passed by the High Court rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that in view of the nature of amendment sought for in the plaint as well as in the agreement, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment of the plaint and the agreement. He further contended that in view of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it was open to the appellant to apply for amendment of the agreement for sale. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that since the prayer for amendment of the plaint was only to correct a part of the description of the suit property in the agreement for sale as well as in the plaint, the court was not justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint and the agreement. Further, by such amendment of the plaint, neither the nature and character of the suit would be changed nor the question of limitation could arise. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the suit would remain a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale and only a part of the description of the suit property would be changed, as noted herein earlier, by way of such amendment. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, sought to argue that the amendment of the agreement, even so far as a part of the description of the suit property is concerned, can not be allowed in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale. According to him, Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act clearly expresses the intention that if the description of the suit property needs to be corrected, it can only be corrected by instituting a suit for correction or rectification of the deed. He has also drawn our attention to sub-section (4) of Section 26 and submitted that no relief for rectification of an instrument should be granted to any party under section 26 of the Act unless it has been specifically claimed. So far as the prayer for amendment of the plaint is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the prayer for amendment of the plaint would be barred by limitation as the agreement was entered into on 12th of April, 1991 and the amendment of the plaint was sought on 9th of May, 2003. Accordingly, neither the prayer for amendment of the agreement, nor the prayer for amendment of the plaint could be allowed even though the said amendment relates only to the change of a part of the description of the suit property.

15. Before parting with this judgment, we may deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application for amendment could not be allowed inasmuch as the same was barred by limitation. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this regard, we may observe that the court may, in its discretion, allow an application for amendment of the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by amendment is allegedly barred by limitation. This view was also expressed by this Court in Pankaja & Anr. Vs. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 415]. In that decision, it was held that there is no absolute rule that in such a case, the amendment should not be allowed and the discretion of the court in that regard depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and such discretion has to be exercised on a judicious evaluation thereof. It was further held in that decision that an amendment, which subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, should be allowed. 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 Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon [ AIR 1969 SC 1267 ]. In paragraph 8 of the said decision this Court observed that "since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises; the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff on the date on which it was originally instituted." A reading of this observation would amply clear the position that no question of limitation shall arise when mis- description of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-description of the suit property arose in a particular case. Apart from that in the present case, although, the relief claimed before as well as after the amendment remained the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale, even then, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted herein earlier, we do not find why the High Court should have interfered with the discretion used by the trial court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.