SAMPATH KUMAR versus AYYAKANNU AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 13-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SAMPATH KUMAR 
A 
v. 
A YYAKANNU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, l] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 6, r.17-Suit-Amendment-Plaintiff. after JI years of filing of 
suit, b111 before trial of suit began, seeking amendment of plaint of suit for C 
pernianenl injunction and converting it into s11it for declaration of title and 
recovery of possession-According to him, cause of action arose pending 
suit-Defendant contending that as he was already in possession and had 
perfected his title by adverse possession suit for injunction was not maintainable 
and amendment could not be allowed-Trial court declining lo allow D 
amendment held that appropriate co11rse for plaintiff was to file a new Sllit-
Held, Order 6, r. I 7 confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to 
alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such 
terms as may be just-Such amendments as are directed towards putting-forth 
and seeking determination of the real questions in controversy between the 
parties shall be permitted to be made-In the instant case, basic structure of E 
the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment -Though plaintiff is not 
debarred from instituting a new suit on the same basic facts-Allowing the 
amendment would c11rtail multiplicity of legal proceedings-However, interest 
of defendant can be protected by directing that so far as relieft for declaration 
of title and recovery of possession are concerned, the prayer in that regard F 
would be deemed to have been made on the date the application for amendment 
was filed-Plaintiff allowed to incorporate the amendment accordingly-It is 
open to defendant to take the conseq11ential pleas-Since the amendment was 
so11ght for before the commencement of the trial, defendant is not prejudiced--
Amendment of plaint-Doctrine of relation back. 
Mst. R11khmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors., AIR (1960) SC 355, 
referred to. 
Amendment of plaint-So11ght after 11 years but before commencement 
of trial-Delay-Effect-Held, the q11estion of delay in moving an application 
397 
G 
H 
398 
SUPiU~ME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A for umettdme»I "should be decided not by calculating the pel"iodfrom the date 
of institution of the suit olt>tte but by reference 10 the stage to which the 
hearing in the suit ltd$ proceeded-Pre-trial amendments are allowed more 
liberally than t~ which are sought to be made after the commencement of 
the /rial or ttfter conclusion thereof-In former case generally it can be as.mmed 
B thal tlte defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full oppor/llnity of 
meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended-In the latter cases the question 
of prejudice to the oppos1'te patty may arise and that shall have to be answered 
by reference to the/iN:f'S find circumstances of each individual case-No strait-
jacket formula ean be laid down-The fact remains that a mere delay cannot 
be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment-Code of Civil Procedure, 
C 1908-0rder 6, r.17. 
Doctrine of relation back-Suit-Amendment of plaint-Held, an 
amendment once incorporotttd 1'1!late8 back to the date of the suit-However, 
the doctrine of relation bttclc iH lhi? context of amendment of pleadings is not 
one of universal application and in appropriate cases the court is competent 
D while permilling an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it 
shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it 
shall be deemed to have been brought before the court on the date on which 
the application seeking the amendment was filed-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908-0rder 6, r.17. 
E 
F 
Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy, f2001 I 8 SCC !!61, relied 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5839 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.2001 of the Chennai High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 2046 of 200 I. 
V. Prabhakar, Ms. Reena and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Appellants. 
P.V. Yogeswaran, Balaji Srinivasan and R.C. Kaushik, for the 
G Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory 
) 
SAMPATH KUMAR v. A YY AKANNU 
399 
injunction alleging the plaintiff-appellant's possession over the suit property A 
which is an agricultural land. The defendant in his written statement denied 
the plaint averments and pleaded that on the date of the institution of the suit 
he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.