The amendment in plaint is to be sought before settlement of issues, that it would change the nature and characteristic of the suit. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Ritesh Sharma Versus Pardeep Kumar Samantaroy and another [CMPMO No. 213 of 2020] by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
The petition was filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, was directed against order whereby an application had been filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order VI rule 17 CPC, therein for amendment of plaint came to be allowed. For having a bird’s eye view of the matter, certain undisputed facts emerge from the pleadings available on record were that plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in any manner in the suit land comprised Khata Khatauni, Khasra No. Kita 26, measuring 1-42-30 hectares situate at Mauja Bakrota, Tehsil Dalhousie, Chamba, Himachal Prades. Defendants claimed in the written statement that the subject “Khyber House” was different property from St. John Church and the shops and the houses adjoining to it. By way of amendment, plaintiff also prayed to clarify his capacity to file the suit as Bishop of Diocese of Amritsar and to correct the title of suit, from Chairman of Church of England, Jnana Mission Property to Bishop of Diocese of Amritsar, Chairman Church of England, Jnana Mission, which owns and possesses Church of England, Jnana Mission Property. Plaintiff claimed that the amendments sought by way of application are necessary for proper adjudication of the case.
The learned council referred the case of Gurbhaksh Singh and othersr vs. Buta Singh and another, 2018 AIR (SC) 2635, Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Lal, (2017)5 SCC 212 and Rajeev Kumar Singhal vs. Mukul Garh and others, 2019.
The court opinioned that, “By way of amendment plaintiff wants to clarify his capacity to institute the suit and the amendment, if permitted, in no manner would change the nature of the suit. Plaintiff has averred in application that he was unable to mention the photographs, which he wants to place on record to show his ownership of the suit property. Since Khasra Numbers of the suit property would remain the same, despite there being amendment allowed qua description of the suit property and authorization of plaintiff, no serious prejudice can be said to be caused to the defendants, in case amendment is allowed.”
The court dismissed petition stating that, “amendment has been sought before settlement of issues that it would change the nature and characteristic of the suit, rather, amendment, if allowed, would enable learned court below to decide the controversy inter se parties in a most effective manner. If perused the amendment proposed by the plaintiff, in its entirety, this court is in full agreement with learned court below that proposed amendment if allowed would not cause any prejudice to the defendants and in no manner, change complexion of the suit.”
