SATISH KUMAR Vs. GH MOHI-UD-DIN
LAWS(J&K)-1986-5-8
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 23,1986

SATISH KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Gh Mohi -Ud -Din Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar in Civil -Appeal No. 5 of i 984 on December 1, 1984, By the order impugned, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge during the pendency of the appeal entertained* the application for amendment to the plaint, which after consideration and bearing the respective parties was allowed subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 400, -. The amendment proposed is based on the subsequent events. It is not necessary for the disposal of this revision petition to reproduce the proposed amendment, which has already been done by the learned Additional District Judge. The amendment is brought by the landlord, in fact to supplement the ground of personal requirement on the basis of which the suit for eviction under the Rent Act has been filed against the petitioner.
(2.) THE only point raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order impugned is based on a legislation titled as this Jammu and Kashmir Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act, 1983. It is vehemently argued that by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act, no public servant shall practice any profession or carry on any trade or business in contravention of the Act. In the instant case, it is submitted that by way of amendment, the respondent/landlord sought the amendment on the plea that the plaintiff intends to do his private practice as a Doctor after the office hours in the suit shop. During the. pendency of the suit, the plaintiff is employed as a Medical Officer in this Government Service. It is further pointed out that the doctors are not permitted to do the private practice in contravention of the said provision, however, learned counsel for the petitioner could not resist the objection by the respondents that the Medical Officers in the Government Employment, who are not drawing non -practicing allowance are permitted to practice after their duty hours, without speculating on the said point it is clear that Section 12 itself envisages that practice of any profession is not completely prohibited as is indicated by the following words in the last part of the Section : - "Without the previous permission in writing of the prescribed authority." I am not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Act bars the private practice in totality exposing the respondent landlord to the liability of prosecution for the amendment, which has been allowed in his favour. Be that as it may, the facts incorporated by way of amendment are open to challenge which the petitioner by way of consequential amendment in the written statement raise in his defence. He is sufficiently compensated by cost due to the delay caused in moving the application for amendment. Learned Additional District Judge elaborately considered all the arguments advanced by the respective parties and has passed a speaking order.
(3.) ON hearing the rival arguments and going through the order impugned, I find that the revision is mis -conceived. It is now well settled that the purpose of bringing the amendments is to advance the cause of justice and not to debar any defaulting party to amend the pleadings at any stage. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the authority of this Court reported in A. I. R. 1971 J&K 81 (Sant Ram, Petitioner Vs. Abdul Haq, Respondent), entirely covers a different field. Of course such an amendment as held cannot be allowed, which is forbidden by law, I hu.V3 already discussed that the amendment allowed in the instant case is not barred by the provisions of the Act referred by learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus the authority is distinguishable and has no applicability in the present case. Honble Supreme Court as far back as in 1967 settled the law relating to the amendments of pleadings. Reliance can be placed for that on A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 96 (A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd., Appellants Vs. Damodar Velley Corporation, Respondent), it is held : - "Where however, the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation." In the instant case by the amendment sought, it is clear that it amounts merely to an additional approach for the ejectment of the tenant by the landlord, thus the authority is applicable in the instant case on all force. The amendments are made to advance the cause of justice and to prevent the multiplicity of litigation. I find that the order granting amendment in favour of the respondents/ landlord does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere in the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the reasons slated here -in -above, there is no merit in the revision, the revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. The petitioners shall bear their own cost and shall pay the cost of the respondents. Hearing Fee Rs. 100, -. The record of the Courts below be sent back forthwith for further proceedings according to law. It also disposes of C. M. Ps. 471 and 472 of 1984;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.