Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 05.05.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Suratgarh in Civil Suit No. 41/08, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner -defendant under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., stands rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had preferred the application seeking amendment of the written statement stating that the fact relating to the ownership of the disputed premises has come to his knowledge recently when the documents in this regard were issued by the Municipal Board, Suratgarh. Learned counsel submitted that from the record of Municipal Board, it is apparent that the disputed premises is owned by Mohanlal and Brijlal and not the plaintiff. Learned counsel submitted that as per the certificate issued by the Municipal Board, Mohanlal and Brijlal are the legal heirs of late Shri Dhanraj Daga and thus, the plaintiff has nothing to do with the disputed premises. Learned counsel submitted that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of written statement are germane to the matter in dispute and for just and complete decision of the dispute involved, it is absolutely necessary that same are permitted to be brought on record. Learned counsel submitted that the amendment of the plaint and prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings and as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of amendment of written statement, the Court should adopt a liberal approach. Learned counsel submitted that so as to explain the stand taken by the petitioner in respect of the ownership of the disputed premises, it is absolutely necessary that the amendment prayed for is allowed. Learned counsel submitted that the amendment prayed for cannot be disallowed solely on the ground of delay. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., : (2007) 5 SCC, 602 and Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors., : (2007) 6 SCC 167.
(2.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Undoubtedly, Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. It is guiding principle of amendment that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings shall be generally allowed/The pre trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. Normally, the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date of suit or legal proceedings were instituted but the subsequent development which have bearing on right to relief claimed by the party, such subsequent events may be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings. However, the power conferred under Order VI Rule 17 is discretionary and has to be exercised judicially on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT is to be noticed that the instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff through her power of attorney holder Mohanlal. It has come on record that Mohanlal and Brijlal have already relinquished their share in the disputed premises vide relinquishment deed dt. 26.6.78. It is true that on 30.5.12 in the record of Municipal Board, Suratgarh, the disputed premises was mutated in the name of Brijlal and Mohanlal but then, vide order dt. 28.5.14, even in the record of Municipal Board, the disputed premises stands mutated in the name of plaintiff Smt. Sushila Devi. It is pertinent to note that Brijlal and Mohanlal have already been examined before the trial Court wherein they have accepted that the premises in question is owned by Smt. Sushila Devi. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has committed no jurisdictional error in refusing the amendment as prayed for.;