LexREVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS versus NARAYANASWAMY & SONS & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 103 REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A v. NARAYANASWAMY & SONS & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 6921 of 2009) OCTOBER 9, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: B Or. 6 r. 17 - Amendment of plaint - Execution of sale c deed by respondents in favour of appellant - Suit by appellant seeking refund of sale consideration and alternatively for possession of property - Amendment application by appellant that respondents be declared as trespassers and unauthorized occupant of the building which D was permitted to be used as licence area; and direction to respondents to vacate and deliver the possession - Allowed by trial court - Set aside by High Court - Interference with - Held: Does not call for interference - High Court rightly held that amendment cannot be permitted since it would introduce E a new case which was not in the original plaint and would adversely affect rights of respondents, and that too four years after the institution of suit - Appellant to pay respondents Rs. one lakh as costs since respondents were compelled to oppose amendment application before different courts. Or. 6 r. 17 - Application under, for amendment of plaint - Factors to be considered - Held: Amendment should be allowed if it is necessary for determining real question in controversy between parties - Amendment should not cause F injustice to the other side. G Costs - Matters seeking amendment - Factors to be considered while awarding costs - Stated. 103 H 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Respondents executed sale deed with regard to scheduled property in favour of the appellant. The said transfer of land was challenged. This Court held that ttie sale deed executed by respondents in favour of appellant was invalid and inoperative. Appellant filed suit against s the respondents for recovery of certain amount-sale consideration amount and alternatively for declaration as absolute owner, of the scheduled property on the basis of the sale deed and direction to respondents to deliver vacant possession of the property. Thereafter, appeHant c filed an application under Or. 6 r. 17 CPC. It prayed that the respondents be declared as trespassers and or in ~nauthoriz.ed occupation of the building which was permitted to be used as licence area; land sought issuance· of direction to respondents to vacate -and 0 deliver peaceful possession of the building to them. Trial court allowed application for amendment. High Court set aside the same. Hence the present appeal. Dismis$ing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. While deciding applications for amendments, the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments. On applying these parameters to F the instant case, the application for amendment is to be dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) because the respondents were compelled to oppose the amendment application before different Courts. [Paras 70 and 71] [134-0-F] · G 2.1. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause ·of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written H statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of ' .... REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS v. NARAYANASWAMY & 105 SONS & ORS. defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking A f inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is B therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of -.<. amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be c substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit. When the said principle is applied to the instant case, the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment cannot be said to be unjustified. [Paras 24, 25 and 26] [118-A-F] D _, Usha Balashaheb Swami and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.