LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 1121 · Decided: 01-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 1121
1121
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
v.
SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2022
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. II r. 2 and Or. VI r. 17 –
Applicability of Or. II r. 2 to an amendment application – Held:
Or.II r.2 operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite
conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview – The bar of
Or. II r.2 applies only to the subsequent suits – Or. II r.2 cannot
apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for Specific Performance –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. II r.2, Or. VI r.17 – Applicability
of – Respondents instituted suit seeking specific performance of
the agreement and in the alternative, prayed for damages – High
Court permitted the Respondents to amend the plaint, seeking to
enhance the amount towards the alternative claim for damages –
Correctness of – Held: There is no merit in the contention raised on
behalf of the appellant that the amendment application is liable to
be rejected by applying the bar u/Or.II r.2 CPC – Or.II r.2 of CPC
cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit –
Further, the amendment application is also not hit by the principle
of constructive res judicata – The said principle has no application
in the instant case, since there was no formal adjudication between
the parties after full hearing – Litigation before this Court has come
up at the stage when the courts below allowed the amendment of
plaint for the purpose of enhancing the amount towards damages
in the alternative to the main relief of specific performance of the
contract – Also, it cannot be successfully urged that a suit for specific
performance falling under the provisions of the 1963 Act would
not be governed by the provisions of the CPC – It is, therefore,
clear that to such a suit the provisions contained in Or.VI, r.17 of
the CPC would apply and a plaintiff who has earlier failed to
incorporate the reliefs for compensation or who has incorporated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
the reliefs for compensation but seeks amendment in the same, could
seek the permission of the court to introduce these reliefs by way of
amendment – Impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, affirming the order passed by the Single Judge allowing
the amendment application not disturbed – Doctrine of constructive
res judicata.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI r. 17 – Amendment of
pleadings – Held: All amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided
it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side – This is
mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the
latter part of Or.VI r.17 – In dealing with a prayer for amendment
of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach,
and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite
party can be compensated by costs – Where the amendment would
enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would
aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed – Where the amendment merely sought
to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing
a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed
even after expiry of limitation – Delay in applying for amendment
alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer – Where the aspect of
delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and
the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI r. 17 – Amendment of
pleadings – When to be allowed and not to be allowed – Discussed.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Proviso to s.21(5) and s.22(2) –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI r. 17 – Held: The two provisos
deal with the question of permitting the plaintiff to amend his plaint
– It is not, as if, in the absence of these two provisos, it is not
permissible in law for the plaintiff to carry out an amendment in his
pleading by introducing a relief for enhanced compensation – r.17
of Order VI does confer power on a Court to allow a party to alter
or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be
just and allows all such amendments to be made as may be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.