REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.154 OF 2009 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.9931 of 2008]

Alkapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .....Appellant  

Versus

Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) Thr.LRs. .....Respondents

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03rd March 2008

passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application

No.451 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the said Application against an order dated 01st

December 2007 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Surat in Regular Civil

Suit No.669 of 1985 dismissing an application of the respondent seeking amendment to the

plaint, was allowed.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

4. Plaintiff-appellant  filed  a  suit  against  Surat  Municipal  Corporation  in  its

capacity both as a town planner and as Local Authority on or about 08th May 1985 before

the learned Civil Judge, Surat which was earmarked as Regular Civil Suit No.617 of 1985.

Deceased-respondent herein, claiming to be an allottee in respect of plot no.29-B of the

Town Planning Scheme No.3 also filed a suit against the appellant herein praying,  inter

alia, for the following reliefs :

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 2 -

“Therefore the plaintiff humbly prays that,  

(1)  be  pleased  to  restrain the  defendants  from interfering  and causing  obstruction  on  the  land  situated  in  Surat  City,  Katargam Town Planning Scheme No.3 having Final Plot No.29-B or cause to interfere, and to restrain from causing any interference or obstruction in their possession and occupation, nor put up any compound wall or fencing, such injunction orders be passed against the defendants.

(2) be pleased to award the entire costs of this suit from the defendants.

(3) be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may deem fit  in the facts of this matter.”

5. Indisputably, in the said suit,  the respondent-plaintiff filed an application for

grant of temporary injunction which was rejected by an order dated 18th December 1985.

Respondent thereafter filed an application for his impleadment in the suit filed by the

appellant herein.  We are informed at the Bar that the said matter is pending before the

Gujarat High Court.

6. Legal representatives of the deceased respondent on or about 09th April 2003

filed an application for amendment of the plaint in terms whereof they not only sought to

implead  Town  Planner,  Surat  Municipal  Corporation  but  also  Surat  Municipal

Corporation  as  such  as  party  defendants.   In  the  said  application  for  amendment,

respondents,  inter alia, contended that having regard to an order of injunction  passed in

the suit by the appellant, they did not obtain peaceful possession of the plot in question.

On the aforementioned premise, the following paragraphs were sought to be added in the

plaint :

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 3 -

“... ...

Alternatively,

Below the Town Planning Scheme the defendant No.1 in this matter has not

handed  over  the  peaceful  posession  of  the  Final  Plot  No.29-B,  if  the Honourable Court should arrive on such decision then in these circumstances the defendants in this matter or the defendant who is held responsible then from the said defendant the peaceful possession of the Final Plot No.29-B be allotted  from the  defendant  Nos.2-3  from other  lands  admeasuring 3689 sq.mts. land be allotted for obtaining such relief the suit is filed.

Amendment No.3

(1-a) Alternatively if the Honourable Court arrives at the conclusion that in this  matter the peaceful  possession  of  the suit  Final Plot  No.29-B  of  the defendant No.1 is not handed over to the plaintiff then in these circumstances the final Plot No.29-B 3689 sq.mts. of land peaceful possession be awarded from the defendant or any defendant held responsible, and the decree to this effect be passed in favour of the plaintiff and if the Honourable Court does not find it appropriate to pass such orders then from amongst the defendants paiki any of the defendants that is held responsible then the land equal to the Final Plot No.29-B 3689 sq.mts. of other land be allotted to the plaintiff, and hand over the peaceful possession in favour of the plaintiffs, for this if found necessary then the Commissioner of appropriate authority be appointed and accordingly the possession of the land be handed over, be pleased to pass such orders in the interest of justice.”

7. The said application for amendment of plaint was dismissed by the learned 3rd

Additional Sr. Civil Judge on 01st December 2007, inter alia, opining that having regard to

the provisions of Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, no suit

could have been filed against the Corporation  until  expiration  of  one  month  from the

date of  

service  of   notice  issued  for  the  said  purpose.   It  was

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 4 -

furthermore opined that the respondents could not be permitted to amend the plaint after a

period of 18 years of filing of the suit.

8. The High Court, however, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned

judgment, reversed the said order dated 01st December 2007, inter alia, relying on or on the

basis of the decisions of this Court in the case of  Pankaja & Anr. v.  Yellappa (Dead) by

LRs & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 415 and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Anr. (2002) 7 SCC

559.

9. Mr. Amar Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellant would

submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment

insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the plaintiff-respondents, by reason of the

said  application for amendment of  the plaint,  sought to  change the  entire nature and

character of the suit.  According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff-respondents in their

suit proceeded on the basis that they were in possession of the plot No.29-B, i.e., the plot in

suit.  However, as no order of injunction had been passed in the said suit, as had been

prayed for by the deceased respondent and furthermore in view of the fact that an order of

injunction had been passed in favour of the appellant in its suit, they have not only sought

to  implead the Town Planner as a party defendant in the suit  but  had prayed for an

alternative relief to grant allotment of an alternative plot in the event they are not found to

be in possession of the said plot.   

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 5 -

10. Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend

that whereas the appellant herein had filed a suit questioning the legality and/or validity of

the Town Planning Scheme, in effect and substance, by reason of the amendment sought

for in the plaint, the deceased respondent prayed for implementation of the Town Planning

Scheme.  In that view of the matter, the learned counsel would contend that neither only

the question of limitation arises but also if the amendment of the plaint, as prayed for, is

allowed,  the  real issue  between the  parties  would  be  determined  as  a  result  whereof

multiplicity of proceedings can be avoided.

11. It is unfortunate that two suits filed by the parties hereto as far back as in 1985

are still pending before the learned Civil Judge for one reason or the other.  The fact,

however, remains that the deceased-respondent who were was not a party to the appellant's

suit being Suit No.617 of 1985, had filed a suit subsequent thereto only with a prayer of

grant of permanent injunction.

12. In the year 2003, long after the deceased respondent's prayer for injunction had

been rejected, his legal representatives filed the aforementioned application for amendment

of the plaint.  A bare perusal of the prayers made in the said application clearly goes to

show that by reason thereof the no prayer has been claimed by the respondents as against

the appellant herein.  The alternative prayer, if it is to be granted, can  be  granted  only

against the Corporation as Town  

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 6 -

Planner as  also  as  the  local  authority in  their  statutory capacities,  whether  such  an

alternative plot could be allotted to the plaintiff-respondents is a matter of concern by and

between  the  Town  Planner  and  the  plaintiff-respondents  wherewith  the  defendant-

appellant had nothing to do.  

13. Respondents, we may notice, in their counter affidavit filed before us themselves

have categorically stated that they, in law, are entitled to take recourse to such remedies as

are available to them for the purpose of grant of allotment of an alternative plot and/or for

implementation of the Town Planning Scheme.  If they had an independent cause of action

against the Corporation either in its capacity as a town planner or as a local authority, in

our opinion, the same by itself cannot be a ground for filing an application for amendment

in the suit pending between the parties wherein,  inter alia, the question of possession, inter

se, is required to be determined.

14. The High Court as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as

noticed hereinbefore, have strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of

Pankaja (supra) wherein relying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in the case of

L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. AIR 1957 SC 357, this Court opined that

in an application for amendment of the plaint it may have to be kept in mind that the

discretionary jurisdiction in that behalf can be exercised by the court even if the suit is

barred by limitation.

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 7 -

15. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the court's jurisdiction to consider an

application for amendment of  pleading is  wide in nature,  but,  when,  by reason of  an

amendment, a third party is sought to be impleaded not only the provisions of O.VI R.17,

Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) but also the provisions of O.I R.10, C.P.C. would come

into play.  When a new party is sought to be added, keeping in view the provisions of sub-

rule (5) of Rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C.,  the question of invoking the period of limitation

would come in.

16. The  High Court,  in  our opinion,  in  a case  of  this  nature,  should  not  have

interfered with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the learned 3rd Additional Sr.

Civil Judge.  The question as to whether an application for amendment should be allowed

in  spite  of  delay and  laches  in  moving  the  same,  would  depend  upon  the  facts  and

circumstances of each case wherefor a judicial evaluation would be necessary.   

17. The  decision  in the  case  of   Pankaja (supra)  itself  is  an authority for  that

proposition.  So far as the decision in the case of Sampat Kumar (supra) is concerned, this

Court has struck a bit different note therein as it was observed :

“10. An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However,  the  doctrine  of  relation-back  in  the  context  of  amendment  of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the court is competent while permitting 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

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 8 -

seeking the  amendment  was  filed.  [See  observations  in  Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561].”

18. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that an application for amendment of the

plaint seeking to introduce a cause of action which had arisen during the pendency of the

suit  stands  on a different footing than the one which had arisen prior to  the date of

institution of the suit.  We have noticed hereinbefore that the plaintiff-respondents in their

application for amendment of the plaint themselves accepted the fact that the appellant

herein not only had filed a suit prior in point of time to the suit filed by the deceased

respondent but had also obtained an injunction as a result whereof they did not obtain

effective possession of the suit land.  If that be so, in our opinion, the plaintiff-respondents

in effect and substance are seeking to alter the basic structure of the suit which in the case

of Sampath Kumar (supra) itself has been held to be impermissible.

19. For the reasons aforementioned,  we are of  the opinion that the High Court

committed a jurisdictional error in interfering with the well considered judgment and order

of  the  learned  3rd Additional  Sr.  Civil  Judge  rejecting  the  application  filed  by  the

respondents for amendment of the plaint.  The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside

and the appeal is allowed.   

C.A.No.154/09 @ SLP(C)No.9931/08 .... (contd.)

- 9 -

20. However,  if  the  respondents  have  independent  cause  of  action  against  the

Municipal Corporation, they may take recourse to such remedies which are available in law.

Sd/- .........................J. [S.B. SINHA]

Sd/- .........................J. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]

New Delhi. January 09, 2009.