However, in the case in hand, none of the above conditions existed as the suit has been filed by stating Section 16(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the amendment sought to be introduced is about the furnishing detailed particulars so as to explain facts on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff (landlord), would be entitled to recover possession and mesne profits.
7. The reference is also made to the ruling in the case of J. Samuel and ors. vs. Gattu Mahesh and ors reported at MANU/SC/0028/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 300. The Apex Court with reference to the provision for amendment and interpretation of the proviso to Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 observed that the party has to satisfy the Court that it could not have discovered that ground which is pleaded by amendment, inspite of due diligence.
8. In the case in hand, merely by stating more details and particulars in the plaint with a view to press the same as grounds on the basis of which the petitioner/defendant (tenant) is sued would not amount to change in the character of the suit nor there is any question of bar of limitation or altogether different or new cause of action. The submission that the amendment was belated and proposed after the commencement of the trial i.e. after framing of the issues in the suit, can be taken care of by imposing reasonable costs upon the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) as a condition precedent for introducing such amendment in the trial at belated stage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Writ Petition No. 2525 of 2014
Decided On: 26.06.2014
Dinesh G. Chhabra
Vs.
Kishore Ghanmare
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Bhangale, J.
Citation: 2015 Bom Rent Cases 4
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
2. The petitioner challenges order dated 21.3.2014, passed by learned Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, below Exh. 46, in Regular Civil Suit No. 315 of 2011, whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was allowed.
3. The facts of the case are, thus :
Regular Civil Suit No. 315 of 2011 was initiated by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) against the petitioner/defendant (tenant) under Section 16(g) and 16(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and also prayed for enquiry into mesne profits, arrears of rent etc. apart from the relief of possession.
4. I am informed that pursuant to order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the trial Court below Exh. 46, the amendment granted has already been carried out in the plaint. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant (tenant), such amendment which has changed the nature of the suit and is about the facts which were within the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff (landlord), were stated after the commencement of the trial and, therefore, the amendment made in the plaint ought to have been rejected.
5. In order to support above submissions, Shri Rohan Chhabra, learned Counsel, made reference to the ruling in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs. vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and anr., reported at MANU/SC/7703/2008 : (2008) 14 SCC 364. The Apex Court in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment cited (supra) referred to the provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and observed that the provision confers jurisdiction upon the Court to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. The opposite party is not prejudiced because it will have an opportunity to meet the amendment made on merits.
Thus, the application for amendment is to be granted liberally and sometimes conditionally in a given case unless it appears that by amendment a party applying for amendment is changing the nature of the suit by introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party or with a view to defeat the law of limitation, such amendment is not to be granted.
6. However, in the case in hand, none of the above conditions existed as the suit has been filed by stating Section 16(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the amendment sought to be introduced is about the furnishing detailed particulars so as to explain facts on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff (landlord), would be entitled to recover possession and mesne profits.
7. The reference is also made to the ruling in the case of J. Samuel and ors. vs. Gattu Mahesh and ors reported at MANU/SC/0028/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 300. The Apex Court with reference to the provision for amendment and interpretation of the proviso to Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 observed that the party has to satisfy the Court that it could not have discovered that ground which is pleaded by amendment, inspite of due diligence.
8. In the case in hand, merely by stating more details and particulars in the plaint with a view to press the same as grounds on the basis of which the petitioner/defendant (tenant) is sued would not amount to change in the character of the suit nor there is any question of bar of limitation or altogether different or new cause of action. The submission that the amendment was belated and proposed after the commencement of the trial i.e. after framing of the issues in the suit, can be taken care of by imposing reasonable costs upon the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) as a condition precedent for introducing such amendment in the trial at belated stage.
9. However, since the cause of action in the petition relates to recovery of possession on the grounds pleaded under Section 16(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and since no other new ground is added by way of amendment and only the facts are explained which may entitle the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) to succeed in the eviction proceeding under the Rent Control Act. Furthermore, the amendment as granted has already been effected in the plaint. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order by which the amendment was granted in the plaint particularly when the petitioner/defendant (tenant) will have full opportunity to file their additional written statement, if any. Additional issues, if any, may be framed by the trial Court apart from the production of documents, if any.
10. The amendment would necessarily relate back to the date of the suit and would be examined on merits by the trial Court. The amendment should have been granted by imposing reasonable costs. The suit was filed in the year 2011 and amendment was granted on 21.3.2014 by the impugned order without any costs. Hence, the amendment shall be considered by the trial, Court at the trial subject to the payment of costs in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be deposited in the trial Court as condition precedent payable to the petitioner/defendant (tenant) within a period of two weeks.
11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly for reasons stated above. No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment