NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6400 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) 30468 of 2008]

Surender Kumar Sharma                     …  

Appellant

VERSUS

Makhan Singh                              … Respondent

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.   

2. In our view, this is a case in which the High Court, in its  

revisional jurisdiction, and the trial Court had fallen in  

1

grave error in refusing amendment of the plaint filed in  

a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.   

3. The appellant, as a plaintiff, has filed the aforesaid suit  

in  respect  of  Property  No.  28,  Varsha  Sarvodaya  

Housing Cooperative Society, Hirapur post, Tatiband,  

Raipur, Chattisgarh against the tenant/respondent.   

4. The trial Court rejected the application for amendment  

of the plaint mainly on the ground that the prayer for  

amendment was a belated one.  In revision, the High  

Court affirmed the order of the trial Court rejecting the  

application  for  amendment  of  the  plaint  inter  alia  

holding that not only the prayer for amendment of the  

plaint  made  by  the  plaintiff/appellant  was  a  belated  

2

one, but also that the prayer, if allowed, shall change  

the nature and character of the suit.   

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High  

Court,  this  Special  Leave  Petition  was  filed  by  the  

plaintiff/appellant, which on grant of leave, was heard  

in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.   

6. We keep  it  on  record  that  in  spite  of  notice  on  the  

defendant/respondent,  no  one  had  contested  this  

appeal before us.    

7. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was  

refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as  

the  first  ground  is  concerned  i.e.  the  prayer  for  

amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that  

3

even  if  it  was  belated,  then  also,  the  question  that  

needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the  

amendment, the real controversy between the parties  

may be resolved.  It is well settled that under Order 6  

Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers  

and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the  

Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party  

in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to  

the Court just and proper.  Even if, such an application  

for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such  

belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that  

for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it  

can be allowed on payment of costs.  Therefore, in our  

4

view, mere delay and latches in making the application  

for  amendment  cannot  be  a  ground  to  refuse  

amendment.   It  is  also  well  settled  that  even  if  the  

amendment  prayed  for  is  belated,  while  considering  

such  belated  amendment,  the  Court  must  bear  in  

favour of  doing full  and complete justice in the case  

where the party against whom the amendment is to be  

allowed,  can  be  compensated  by  cost  or  otherwise.  

[See B.K. N. Pillai Vs. P. Pillai and another [AIR 2000  

SC 614 at Page 616].  Accordingly, we do not find any  

reason to hold that only because there was some delay  

in  filing  the  application  for  amendment  of  the  plaint,  

such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed.

5

8. So far as the second ground is concerned i.e. the prayer  

for amendment of plaint, if allowed, shall change the nature and  

character of the suit, we are unable to accept this view of the  

High  Court.   We  have  carefully  examined  the  amendment  

prayed  for  and  after  going  through  the  application  for  

amendment of the plaint, we are of the view that the question of  

changing the nature and character of the suit, if amendment is  

allowed, cannot arise at all.  The suit has been filed for eviction  

inter alia on the ground of arrears of rent.  It cannot be disputed  

that even after the amendment, the suit would remain a suit for  

eviction.   Therefore,  we  are  unable  to  agree  that  if  the  

amendment of the plaint is allowed, the nature and character of  

the suit shall be changed.  Accordingly, the High Court was not  

6

justified in holding that the nature and character of the suit shall  

be changed, if such prayer for amendment is allowed.    

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the orders of the High Court as  

well  as  of  the  trial  Court  are  set  aside.   The application  for  

amendment of the plaint filed by the appellant stands allowed,  

subject to the payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite  

party,  which  shall  be  deposited/paid  within  a  period  of  six  

weeks from the date of supply of a copy of this order.  In default  

of  deposit/payment  of  such  costs,  the  application  for  

amendment of the plaint shall stand rejected.   

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed to the  

extent indicated above.  There will be no order as to costs.      

7

…………………………,J [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

…………………………,J [R. M. LODHA]

NEW DELHI,  SEPTEMBER 18, 2009

8