RAMESHKUMAR AGARWAL versus RAJMALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 30-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 992 
RAMESHKUMAR AGARWAL 
v 
RAJMALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3295 of 2012) 
MARCH 30, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI, r. 17 - Amendment 
of pleadings -Suit by respondent for specific performance of 
C agreement of sale of immovable property - Subsequent 
prayer by plaintiff-respondent for amendment of the plaint -
Plea of defendant-appellant that the proposed amendment 
altered the cause of action - Held: Not tenable -
The 
amendment application was filed immediately after filing of 
O the suit and before commencement of the trial -
The 
proposed amendment merely introduced facts/evidence in 
support of the contention already pleaded, viz., that the entire 
consideration under the agreement had been paid - In the 
original plaint, the details of payment of consideration were 
E not stated and by the amendment, the plaintiff wanted to 
explain how money consideration was paid - There was thus 
no inconsistency in the case of the plaintiff- By the proposed 
amendment, the plaintiff was not altering the cause of action 
and in any way prejudice the defendants - The amendment 
F sought for was also not barred by limitation. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Or. VI, r.17-Amendment 
of pleadings - Object and scope of - Factors to be taken into 
consideration while dealing with application for amendments 
- Held: While deciding application for arpendment ordinarily 
G the Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and 
necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide 
and dishonest amendments - Purpose and object of Order 
VI Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend 
his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be 
H 
992 
RAMESHKUMAR AGARWAL v. RAJMALA EXPORTS 993 
PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
just - Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and 
A 
under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such 
prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach - Liberal 
approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases 
where the other side can be compensated with costs -
Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid 
B 
multiplicity of litigations. 
Respondent no.1 filed suit for specific performance 
of agreement of sale of immovable property before the 
High Court. Later, respondent no.1-plaintiff took out C 
Chamber Summons in the suit for amendment of the 
plaint. A Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed 
the Chamber Summons. Against the order, the appellant-
defendant filed appeal before the Division Bench of the 
High Court which dismissed the same. Hence the present 
appeal. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. After filing a suit for specific performance in 
the year 2007, the plaintiff filed Chamber Summons for 
E 
amendment of plaint for impleadment of two parties as 
plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 and three parties as defendant Nos. 
3,4 & 5 apart from the fact that he wants to explain how 
money consideration under the agreement of sale was 
paid. A perusal of the amendment application shows that 
plaintiff by this amendment seeks to incorporate certain 
facts, which according to him, establish that an aggregate 
amount of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- was paid by him and the 
proposed plaintiffs prior to the suit agreement; that 
defendant No.1 confirmed having received the payment 
from the plaintiffs in the name of his nominees, namely, 
G 
proposed defendant Nos. 3-5 and the receipt of the 
amount was reflected in the accounts of proposed 
defendant Nos. 3-5. It is also projected that the proposed 
amendment is limited to the extent of contending that 
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the proposed defendants 
F 
H 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A treated the payment made by the plaintiffs to defendant 
Nos.3 to 5 as payment having been made to defendant 
No.1. Though the appellant herein-defendant No.1 therein, 
contended that the proposed amendment altered the 
cause of action, after perusal of the entire averments, this 
B Court is of the view that it merely introduce facts/evidence 
in support of the contention already pleaded, viz., that the 
entire consideration under the agreement has been paid. 
In the original plaint, the details of payment of 
consideration have not been stated and by the present 
c amendment, the plaintiff wants to explain how money was 
paid. Accordingly, there is no inconsistency in the case 
of the plaintiff. The claim th

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