JUDGMENT D.S. Zoting, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. M. Borde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.T. Veer, Advocate holding for Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties.
3. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. They have challenged the order dated 19-11-2004 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Majalgaon, below Exh. 50 in Special Civil Suit No. 50/2004 (Old No. 12/2002). The said suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondent No. 1 to 4 for recovery of the possession of the suit property and for arrears of licence fee. They claimed that they are the owners of the suit property and the suit property was given on lease to the respondent No. 1 at the licence fee of Rs. 8,000/- per month, and the respondent No. 1 paid amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- as advance to the plaintiffs. According to the petitioners, as respondent No. 1 committed default in payment of the licence fee, they were constrained to file the said suit for recovery of possession of suit property and arrears of the licence fee. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were added as party. The original defendant No. 1 (present respondent No. 1) resisted the suit by filing written statement contending that the petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to him and other 3 persons and they are in possession of the said property and in respect of the said transaction the petitioners executed "Tabe Isar Pawati" on 15-5-1994. Along with the written statement, he had placed on record the said document.
4. According to the petitioners, the document produced by the respondent No. 1 is not executed by them and it is a bogus document brought into existence with a view to defeat the claim of the petitioners. It is to be noted that in view of the pleading made by the respondent No. 1 and the document brought on record, the petitioners have filed application for amendment for seeking declaration that the said document dated 15-5-1994 be declared as not binding on the petitioners. They have also prayed for adding the defendant No. 4 as a party.
According to the respondents (defendants), vide said document dated 15-5-1994, the petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to four persons i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were parties to the suit. Defendant No. 4 was not a party, therefore, while making application for amendment, the petitioners have prayed for adding defendant No. 4 as a party.
5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judge allowed the application partly and thereby allowed the petitioners to add defendant No. 4 as a party to the suit. However, their prayer for amendment for seeking declaration in respect of the document dated 15-5-1994 has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of amendment for seeking relief of declaration, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
6. Perused the order passed by the trial Court below Exh. 50 in Special Civil Suit No. 50/2004 (Old No. 12/2002). The prayer pertaining to the document dated 15-5-1994 came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners have knowledge of the said document prior to the institution of the suit. Whether they have knowledge prior to the institution of the suit or not may be a matter to be decided on the merits in the said suit. However, as petitioners (original plaintiffs) have pleaded that they came to know about the document when it was produced along with the written statement, it ought to have been considered without going into merits at the time of deciding the application for amendment.
7. It is to be noted that the application Exh. 50 for amendment of the plaint is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Ors., (2001)2 SCC 472 and contended that the ratio laid down in the said case ought to have been adopted by the trial Court while considering the application and the trial Court ought to have allowed the said application.
8. I have gone through the said case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In this case, the well settled principle is reiterated as under:
"3. The purpose and object of Order 8, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code is to allow either party to alter or 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 interest 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 a 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."
9. It is to be noted that in Special Civil Suit No. 50/2004 (Old No. 12/2002) filed by the petitioners issues are yet to be framed. Considering the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is an inordinate delay in making the application for amendment. The power to allow the amendment is a wide and it can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case. Considering the facts and circumstances and principle of Law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the instant case, the amendment sought cannot be declined. In view of the legal position noted hereinabove, the impugned order is not sustainable and, therefore, the impugned order so far as it relates to rejection of the amendment application is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioners (original plaintiffs) are allowed to amend the plaint subject to costs of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only) payable to the defendant No. 1.
10. Rule made absolute accordingly.