http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 787  of  2001

PETITIONER: RAGU THILAK D. JOHN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.RAYAPPAN & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/01/2001

BENCH: K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

SETHI,J.

   Delay condoned.

   Leave granted.

   The  appellant  filed  a suit  against  the  respondents praying  for  a decree of permanent  injunction  restraining@@                 JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ them,  their  agents and subordinates from  demolishing  the@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ compound  wall  in the suit scheduled property.  During  the pendency  of  the  suit,   the  respondents-defendants  were alleged to have entered the appellant’s house unauthorisedly and  demolished the compound wall on north, east and western side.   They  were also alleged to have damaged the gate  in the entrance.

   In  view  of the subsequent developments, the  appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for the amendment of  the plaint for adding paras 8(a) to 8(f) in his  plaint. The  trial  court  rejected  his  prayer  and  the  revision petition  filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court  vide  order  impugned in this appeal, mainly  on  the ground  that  the  amendment, if allowed,  would  result  in introducing  a new case and cause of action.  It was further held  that as the appellant was seeking recovery of damages, the  amendment  could not be allowed as it  would  allegedly change  the  nature of the suit.  It was also observed  that the amendment sought was barred by limitation.

   After  referring to the judgments in Charan Das v.  Amir Khan  [AIR 1921 PC 50], L.J.  Leach & Co.  Ltd.  & Anr.   v. Jardine  Skinner & Company [1957 SCR 438], Smt.Ganga Bai  v. Vijay  Kumar & Ors.  [1974 (2) SCC 393], M/s.Ganesh  Trading Co.   v.   Moji  Ram  [1978 (2) SCC 91]  and  various  other authorities,  this  Court in B.K.N.  Pillai v.   P.Pillai  & Anr.  [JT 1999 (10) SC 61] held:  "The purpose and object of Order  6  Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to  alter  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

amend  his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be  just.  The power to allow the amendment is wide and  can be  exercised  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings  in  the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various  High  Courts and this Court.  It is true  that  the amendment  cannot be claimed as a matter of right and  under all  circumstances.  But it is equally true that the  courts while  deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach.   Liberal  approach  should be  the  general  rule particularly   in  cases  where  the   other  side  can   be compensated  with  the costs.  Technicalities of law  should not  be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of  justice between the parties.  Amendments are allowed  in the   pleadings  to  avoid   uncalled  for  multiplicity  of litigation.

   If  the  aforesaid test is applied in the instant  case, the  amendment  sought could not be declined.  The  dominant purpose  of  allowing  the  amendment  is  to  minimise  the litigation.   The  plea  that the relief sought  by  way  of amendment   was   barred  by  time   is  arguable   in   the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plant which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment.  We feel that in  the  circumstances  of the case the plea  of  limitation being  disputed could be made a subject matter of the  issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.

   In view of the legal position, as noted hereinabove, the impugned  order is not sustainable.  Accordingly, the appeal is  allowed  by  setting  aside   the  impugned  order   and permitting  the  appellant-plaintiff  to  amend  the  plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-.