SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Code of Civil Procedure

B.K. NARAYANA PILLAI V. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI (2000) 1 SCC 712 (SETHI, J.)

B.K. NARAYANA PILLAI V. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI (2000) 1 SCC 712 (SETHI, J.)

 

FACTS

  • The respondent filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction to evict the appellant on the ground that the appellant was a licensee. In response, the Appellant in his written statement pleaded that he was a lessee rather than a licensee.
  • Subsequently, the appellant filed an application to amend the written statement to: (1) incorporate an alternative plea that if he was held to be a licensee, he couldn’t be evicted as the license was irrevocable, (2) add a plea that the license cannot be revoked since: (a) 1st & 2nd prayers in the plaint were barred by limitation law, (b) under the license, expenses of permanent nature were incurred and hence were protected by Section 20(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
  • The prayer for amendment was rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court on the ground that the proposed amendment was mutually destructive and that allowing them would amount to permitting the appellant from withdrawing the admission made in the Written statement.

 

ISSUE

  • Whether the appellant is entitled to the proposed amendment to the written statement?

 

HELD

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned orders and permitted the appellant to amend the written statement. However, the appellant was directed to pay the arrears of the license fee.

 

  • The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is to allow either party to amend or alter their pleadings in just manner and terms.
  • The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of proceedings in the interest of justice based on certain guidelines. However, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. This power is discretionary and hence wider the discretion, greater should be the care and caution by the courts.
  • The courts should adopt a liberal rather than a hypertechnical approach particularly when the other side can be compensated with costs. Amendments are allowed to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of litigation.
  • In AK Gupta & Sons Ltd. v Damodar Valley Corporation (AIR 1967 SC 96), it was held that as a general rule, a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred but when the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation.
  • Principal reasons for the above rule are: (1) the object of the courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes, (2) limitation law cannot be strictly relied upon because what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading which is sought to be amended.
  • “Cause of action” in the present context does not mean ‘every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed’ rather it only means a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts.
  • “New case” means a new set of ideas and hence no amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time.
  • In Ganesh Trading Co. v Moji Ram (1978) 2 SCC 91, it was held that application for amendment should be allowed if: (1) the other side can be compensated through costs, (2) the other side is given necessary opportunities to meet exact situations that may result from the amendment.
  • Principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event.
  • The defendant has the right to take an alternative plea by the proposed amendment provided: (1) the other side should not be subjected to injustice, (2) any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn.
  • All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies provided that such proposed amendment doe snot alter or substitute a new cause of action.
  • Allegations contrary to the admitted facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed by amendment of pleadings.
  • No amendment should be allowed which defeats a legal right to the other side on account of lapse of time.
  • The plea of the appellant is not inconsistent with the pleas already raised in defence rather it is in fact the extension of the plea of the respondent and rebuttal to the plea that the appellant being a licensee is liable to be evicted.
  • Delayed filing of application could not be a ground for rejecting particularly when the other side could be compensated by costs.

 

COMMENTARY

All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is a cardinal rule that “there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.”

The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to amendments of the written statement. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event.