- (1.) Writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.1995 passed by Civil Judge-VIII, Pratapgrah allowing amendment in the plaint in Original Suit No. 212 of 1979 and the order dated 9.8.2005 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting petitioner's revision. It appears that an amendment application was filed in Original Suit No. 212 of 1979 for adding certain words which read as under: Petitioner opposed the amendment on the ground that in case amendment is allowed, it would amount to grant of entire relief to plaintiff. The said objection has been rejected by both the Courts below and the amendment has been allowed observing that so far as question of relief is concerned, the matter has yet to be adjudicated and the amendment in question neither changes the nature of suit nor ex facie barred by limitation and there is no reason for not allowing the same. It is well settled law that an amendment ought to have been allowed if it does not change the nature of the suit nor intends to add a claim which is barred by limitation nor takes away the claim of the other party nor amounts to a fresh cause of action nor otherwise prejudice the other side. Instead of adding several authorities on this aspect, I intend to refer to the decision of Apex Court in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., 2009 74 AllLR 370 (SC) where the Court held: Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, 1957 SCR 595 which still holds the field, it was held that 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. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. [Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, 1990 1 SCC 166].
(2.) This has been followed in Peethani Suryanarayana and another v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and others, 2009 75 AllLR 510(SC). To the same effect is the view taken in Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, 2009 76 AllLR 138).
(3.) From the above, the law discern is that in the matter of seeking amendment in the pleadings, Courts must have taken a pragmatic view as to whether amendment would delay the proceedings, will change the nature of the proceedings, will have the effect of giving new cause of action and so on but otherwise where the plaintiff himself has sought amendment in the plaint, I find no reason to discard the amendment. In the present case, the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner that in case the aforesaid amendment is allowed, it would result in granting entire relief to plaintiff, is thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable. Even after allowing the amendment, the issue raised by the parties before the Court below has to be adjudicated on the basis of pleadings and evidences adduced before it and merely allowing of amendment application does not mean that the entire relief has been granted to plaintiff. I, therefore, find no error apparent on face of record warranting interference. Dismissed.;