IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29/07/2002
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1035 of 2002
Venkatesh .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Padmavathi
2. Arumugha Perumal .. Respondents
Revision against the order dated 24.4.2002 made in I.A.No.17 of 2002
in A.S.No.30 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court IV, Erode at Bhavani.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T. Murugamanikkam
^For Respondents: Mr.S.K. Nachimuthu
:O R D E R
By consent, the revision itself is taken up for hearing.
2. The revision is directed against the order dated 24.4.2002 made in
I.A.No.17 of 2002 in A.S.No.30 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Erode at Bhavani, refusing to permit the
revision petitioner to amend the plaint at the appellate stage. The details
of amendment reads as under.
” (1) After paragraph 3 add a new paragraph 3(a) as follows, the
plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance, the
plaintiff is entitled for the refund of Rs.80,000/- paid to the defendants
towards sale consideration with 12% interest from the date of suit. Hence the
plaintiff seeking the alternative relief for such refund.
(2) For Paragraph 5 of the plaint substitute the following:
The plaintiff value the suit for the purpose of Court fee and
jurisdiction at Rs.80,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.6,000.50 is paid thereon
under Section 42 R/W.22 of the Tamilnadu Court fee and Valuation Act of 1955.
DETAILS OF VALUATION:
1. For Specific performance:-
Total sale consideration Rs.80,000.00
Court fee paid U/s.42 Rs. 6.000.00
2. For Refund of sale consideration Paid:-
Sale consideration paid Rs.80,000.00
Court fee payable U/s.22 Rs. 6,000.00
3. At the end of Sub-Paragraph 6(a) add the
following:-
Or in the alternative the Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to direct the defendants to pay
plaintiff the sum of Rs.80,000/- with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from
the date of suit till payment.”
3. The permission to amend the plaint sought for under Order 6, Rule
17, CPC, was rejected by order dated 24.4.2002 made in I.A.No.17 of 2002
referred to above on the only ground that the amendment sought for would
change the very character of the suit.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner/appellant in A.S.No.30 of 2002, laid
O.S.No.27 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, for specific
performance of an agreement dated 5.2.1993 seeking a decree
(a) directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit properties within the time to be stipulated
by this Honourable Court and on their default, the Honourable Court itself may
execute such sale deed on their behalf; and
(b) putting the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties.
But, the suit was resisted by the respondents denying the very execution of
the agreement dated 5.2.1993.
5. The learned Sub Judge, by decree and judgment dated 22.11.2000
made in O.S.No.27 of 1996, accepting the case of the respondents/ defendants,
dismissed the suit. Hence, the revision petitioner filed A.S.No.152 of 2001
on the file of the learned District Judge, Erode, which now stands transferred
to the file learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-IV, Erode, and
renumbered as A.S.No.30 of 2002.
6. At this stage, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.17
of 2002 seeking an amendment in the plaint invoking Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, and
the same was dismissed by order dated 24.4.2002, holding that the amendment
sought for would change the character of the suit. Hence, the above revision.
7. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, which
reads as under.
“Amendment of Pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow
either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and on such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for
the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the
parties.”
8. It is well settled in law that the amendment under Order 6, Rule
17, CPC, can be made at any stage of the proceedings which includes the
appellate stage.
9. In my considered opinion, the power to allow an amendment is, no
doubt, wide and may at any stage appropriately exercised in the interest of
justice. While refusing to permit the amendment to amend the pleadings, the
Court has to exercise the discretion conferred on it judiciously and the
greater ought to be the care while exercising such judicial consideration.
10. The Apex Court, time and again, emphasised that the Court should
be extremely liberal in granting the prayer of amendment of pleadings, unless
serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.
11. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment
sought for, viz. seeking the relief of compensation in lieu of or in addition
to specific performance sought for by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff as
proposed in the instant case, would not, in my considered opinion, change the
character of the suit. On the other hand, if the amendment is refused, it
would cause a great hardship and injustice to the revision
petitioner/plaintiff. At the same time, by permitting the amendment, the
respondent/defendant would not be put into any loss or hardship as he
categorically denies the execution of the said agreement itself.
12. That apart, the Apex Court in Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh
reported in AIR 1992 SC 1604 has held that the amendment sought for in lieu of
or in addition to specific performance whether the plaintiff has not abandoned
the relief of specific performance, the Court will allow the amendment at any
stage of the proceedings.
13. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, I am
obliged to set aside the order dated 24.4.2002 made in I.A.No.17 of 20 01 and
allow the I.A.No.17 of 2001.
In the result, revision is allowed. No costs. CMP No.8494 of 2002 is
closed.
Kpl 29.7.2002. To 1. The Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court - IV) Erode at Bhavani. (with records if any) 2. The Subordinate Judge Bhavani. P.D. DINAKARAN, J. CRP(PD) No.1035 of 2002.