- (1.)THIS is a revision application against an order of the Sub -Registrar Munsiff, Srinagar, dated 5th Har 2011 whereby he has rejected an application made by the plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint, on the ground that by this amendment the nature of the suit will be changed and a new case would be made out.
(2.)THE plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in her possession in the suit land. In the application seeking permission to amend, it has been submitted that the defendants took forcible possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit and it was prayed that the plaintiff be permitted to seek further relief of possession. The non -applicant resisted this prayer of the applicant on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit. The trial Court upheld the objection and rejected the application.
(3.)THE learned counsel for the applicant has referred me to - Nabi Baksh v. Angney, AIR 1927 Oudh 513 A. In this case the plaintiff besides a general relief on the facts proved, asked for two substantial reliefs, viz., one for possession of certain plots and the other for injunction in respect of some other plots. In this case it was held that "An amendment of the plaint in the sense that plaintiff may be granted a decree for possession of even those plots in respect of which he had asked for a decree for injunction in the event, of the Court finding that he was out of possession of those plots, should be allowed." In -Ganda Singh Harnam Singh v. Zora Singh, AIR 1950 Pepsu 21 B, the learned Judge Kartar ingh J. has held that: "Amendment of the plaint at a later stage on account of certain circumstances happening after the institution of the suit cannot be considered to mean the institution of a new suit, particularly when the parties are the same and the dispute is the same." 5 In this case the amendment which added consequential relief to the declaration prayed for originally was made after the period of limitation prescribed for the consequential relief had expired, but the learned Judge has held that the suit would not become time -barred merely because the consequential relief was added after the period of limitation. 6 In - Lakshmiah Naidu v. Krishnaswami Naidu, AIR 1935 Mad 286 C it has been laid down that: "O. 6, R. 17 is considerably wider than the corresponding section of the old Code and the Court is given very wide power of discretion to allow amendments especially to avoid multiplicity of suits. Where the only result of refusing an amendment would be to drive the plaintiff to a fresh suit while the title remains the same, an amendment ought to be allowed," In this case also the plaintiff had made a prayer for declaration only, but later on he was allowed to add a relief for possession though this relief was added after the period of limitation for possessory suit had expired. 7 As against all this, the learned counsel for the non -applicant has drawn my attention to - Sobhraj Pritamdas v. Variomal Holaram, AIR 1942 Sind 4 D in which it has been held: "The power of amendment given to the Court, wide though it is, does not cover the granting of an amendment to introduce into a suit a cause of action which did not exist when the suit is filed but which has arisen during the pendency of the suit especially when the effect of allowing such an amendment will be that the plain tiff is permitted to alter the nature of his suit." But with all respect I beg to differ from the view taken in the Sind ruling and would much prefer to follow the view taken by their Lordships of the Oudh, Madras and Pepsu High Courts. 8 A reference to O. 6, R. 17, Civil P. C would make it abundantly clear that an amendment of pleadings should be allowed when it aims at determining the real question in controversy between the parties, so as to avoid multiplicity of suits. The learned author Chitaleyin his commentary on the Civil Procedure Code has summarised the law in the following words: "An alteration merely in the relief claimed in the suit does not, as a general rule, change the character of the suit, and an amendment seeking such alteration will be allowed if it does not cause injustice to the other side." Later on we find in the same commentary: "Where, by virtue of the circumstances arising subsequent to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff becomes entitled to a larger or other relief than the one claimed, amendment may he allowed so as to add such other relicf. All reliefs ancillary to the main relief asked for in the plaint may be allowed to be added by way of amendment. Thus, where a move declaration is asked for, an amendment by adding the appropriate consequential relief may be allowed; even in cases where the consequential relief is deliberately omitted, to avoid paying higher court -fee, the court may allow the amendment to be made by the addition of a prayer for the consequential relief on payment of the additional court -fee." From the above it would become abundantly cleat that the main object of allowing amendments is get at the rights of the parties and to avoid multiplicity of suits. But there is one condition, and that is that it should be possible to settle the dispute in the suit already instituted without unfair ness or injustice to the opposite party. In the present case if the amendment is not allowed, it would mean that the plaintiff should bring an other suit. If such a state of affairs could be easily avoided by an amendment, I wonder why it should not be allowed. 9 Under these circumstances I accept this revision application and allow the amendment prayed for, and order that the plaintiff applicant should pay Rs. 20/ - as costs to the defendant. H.G.P. Revision allowed.