The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint and held that the amendment sought is hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC as the suit is pending for final arguments and if the amendment is allowed the eviction suit will be converted to that of a title suit and since the evidence have already been led in this case, there has to be denovo trial, which is not permissible and it was clear from the facts of the present case, that the petitioner had failed to qualify the test of due diligence which is pre-requisite in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
Brief Facts:
The suit was at the instance of the petitioner wherein he has prayed to evict the defendant from the scheduled property and it was mentioned in the plaint that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, who was regularly paying rent and had stopped payment of rent from the concerned date after which he became a defaulter. Further the defendant, on request made by the plaintiff, agreed to vacate the premises, but he failed after which the plaintiff claimed that he needed vacant possession of the suit premises for the benefit of his wife and children and he thus filed an eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity and default. The plaintiff by the amendment, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment to the plaint wherein he claimed for a declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and further prayed that after declaring title of the plaintiff the defendant party be evicted from the suit premises which was rejected by the trial court under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 227 against this impugned order.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the trial court had committed grave illegality by rejecting the amendment application as it was necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties. It was argued that amendment of the plaint can be allowed at any stage and the discretionary power should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff in this case, so as to bring to an end to the real dispute and issues between the parties and the amendment is necessary because of the fact that the defendant has claimed title over the property in question, which necessitated the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint by seeking a declaration of his independent right over the property.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of respondent contended that the petitioner by filing the amendment application wanted to convert an eviction suit to a title suit, which cannot be allowed. It was argued that the nature of the suit cannot be allowed to be changed by filing an amendment application, that too at the stage of the final argument of the suit when evidence has already been led.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and stated that pleadings can be amended, to determine the real dispute between the parties, but the proviso mandates that no such application shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial.
The court stated that in the present case, the plaintiff wanted to convert the eviction suit into a title suit and the amendment application had been filed at the very fag end of the suit when the case is fixed for final argument and the fact that t the defendant had challenged the title of the plaintiff and claimed his independent title is evident from the written statement itself and despite having knowledge about the fact that the defendant has claimed the independent title and challenged the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff kept mum and led evidence based on the pleadings, which was filed by him and the suit proceeded as an eviction suit under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, where admittedly, the relationship of landlord and tenant is adjudicated and there is no scope of adjudication of the title of any of the parties.
The court further referred to Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act and stated that to become a ‘landlord’ it is not necessary that the person should be the title holder of the land or building in question and this is the reason, in an eviction suit, title of the landlord is not adjudicated, rather parties only have to prove that he is the landlord in terms of the Act.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Sao vs. Binod Kumar Sao
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: C.M.P. No. 317 of 2021
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahni
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manjul Prasad, Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Mr. Snehalika Bhagat and Mr. Baban Prasad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
