PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL versus KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 07-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
595 
PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL 
v. 
KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS 
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, S.K. DAS AND 
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Amendment of Plaint-Additio11 of furthe1· and better parti-
culars of the claim-Nature of reliefs not altered-Fresh suit on 
the date of amendme11t barred by limitation-Whether amendment 
should be allowed-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), 0. VI, 
r. 17. 0. XX/, rr. 97, 99, 103. 
S. obtained 
a decree of 
ejectment against the 
third respon-
dent and while attempting to take possession of the properties in 
execution of the decree he 
was obstructed by the 
appellant and 
the application for removal 
of the 
obstruction was dismissed 
by 
the Court on April, 12, 1947. He thereupon filed the present suit 
oo• 
March 12, 1948, under 0. XX!, r. 103, of the 
Code of Civil 
Procedure, for a 
declaration that he 
was entitled to 
recover 
possession of the suit properties, impleading the appellant and 
the third 
respondent. 
In the 
plaint, 
apart 
from the decree 
obtained in the earlier suit no particular averments were made 
as to the facts or grounds on which the plaintiff based his title to 
the suit properties as against the appellant. 
Both in his appli-
cation dated November 20, 1948, and in his 
written 
statement, 
the appellant objected to the maintainability of the suit on the 
grounds that he was not a party to the previous suit and that the 
plaint disclosed no cause of action against him. 
On March 29, 
1950, when the suit was taken up for trial on the preliminary 
issue as 10 
whether the 
suit as framed 
was tenable, 
an appli-
cation was made by the plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint 
by giving further and better particulars of the claim made in. the 
plaint. 
The trial judge rejected the application . and dismissed 
the suit, but the 
High Court, on appeal, allowed the application. 
The appellant appealed by special leave and contended that the 
application for amendment 
should 
not 
have 
. been. 
allowed 
because ( 1) on 
the date. of the application for 
amendment, 
the 
period of limitation for a suit under 0. XX!,. r .. 103, Code of Civil 
Procedure, had already expired, and (2) though the attention. of 
the plaintiff to the defect in the original plaint had been drawn 
as early as . November 20, 1948, no 
application 
for amendment 
was made till March 29, 1950. 
Held, that 
the 
application . for 
amendment 
was · rightly 
allowed by the 
High Court, because the amendments did not 
really 
introduce any 
new case 
nor alter the 
nature of the 
reliefs sought, and. though the application was made after the 
expiry of the 
period of limitation for a 
suit . under 0. XX!, 
r. 103, Code. of Civil Procedure, 
the appellant did not have 
to 
1957 
Pir!!onda 
!lon.P,o'nda Patil 
v 
/(a/gonda 
Xhidgondn Patil 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f19571 
1neet 
;:i. nc\v case and he \Vas 
not taken by surprise; nor di<l he 
ha\'e co meet a ne\v ciai1n set up 
for the first time rtfter the 
expiry of the period of lin1itation. 
(,'hara11 Das v .. Anzir I<han (L. R. 47 I.1\. 255), relied on. 
L. /. Leach & Co. \". /ardine Skinner & Ca. ([1957] S.C.R. 438), 
followed. 
Observa~ions 
of 
Batchelor 
J. in 
Kisandas 
Rttpchand 
\'. 
Rachappa Vithoba (I.L.R. 33 Barn. 644, 649), approved. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISD!CTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 
228 of 1953. 
Appeal 
by special 
leave from the 
Judgment and 
Decree dated September 6, 1951, of the 
Bomboy 
High 
Court in Appeal No. 1% of 1950 from the 
Judgment 
and Decree dated March 31, 1950, of the Civil Judge, 
Senior Division, Kolhapur in Civil Suit No. 23 of 1949. 
S. C. Isaacs, S. N. Andlev, 
R.ameshll•m· 
Nath 
ai:d 
/. B. Dadachanji, for the ap1;ellant. 
Achhru Ram, G. A. De.«1i am! Natmit Lai, 
for res-
pondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
1957. February 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
S. K. DAs J .-This is an appeal by special 
leave 
from the judgment and decree of the · High 
Court of 
Bombay dated 
Septemher 6, 1951, by which 
the said 
High Court set aside. on appeal the decree passed by 
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 
Koibapur, 
in Civil 
Suit No. 25/49 and allowed an amendment of the pbnt 
at the appellate 
sr:1ge, subject 
ro 
ccrtam 
conditions. 
in the circumstances stated belov./. 
1"'he appeflant before us 
\.Vas defendant No. 1 in the 
suit. 
Respondent:; 1 and 2 arl: the heirs of the original 
plaintiff anci respondent No. 3 was defendant No. 2 in 
the action. 
In 1942 the ori
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.