Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 4 of 1950, decided on 5th June 1950, from the order of the Senior Sub‑Judge, Bahawalpur, dated 20th February 1950.

, O. VI, r. 17‑Imlbortant plea sought to be added ' ire Pleading‑Amendment should be allowed.

A I R 1933 Bom. 644 ; 4 1 ‑C 726 ; 10 C D 393, 396 ; 26 C D 700 and 711 referred to.

It is no doubt true that the petitioner had omitted to raise this plea in his original written statement Which he has, now advanced to amend his written statement, but from what has been argued before me I treat it as au important plea do for the decision of the case of the defendant. In these circum 3tauceS the amendment should have been allowed.

Some agricultural land belonging to Gobinda Ram was sold by him to Haji Ahmad Bakhsh. The mutation of the sale was sanctioned on 21st of December 1943. A suit for pre‑emption was brought by Haji Rahim Bakhsh on 21st of June 1944. Various pleas were raised by the vendee and the issues on the pleadings of the parties were framed. The evi dence proceeded and before it was concluded on the part of the plaintiff the defendant vendee applied for the amendment of the written statement by adding a plea to the effect that he was in possession of the property before the 9th of November 1942. This application was rejected by the learned Senior Sub‑Judge on the ground that it was belated and changed the nature of the suit This is the subject‑matter of the revision before this Court. As the opposite party is un represented hence I heard the counsel of the petitioner Who referred me to Order VI rule 17 which reads. "The, Court may at any 'stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such' terms as may be just, and au such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties". The wordings of the rule show that as a general rule leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real question in issue between the parties to be , raised on the pleadings, where the amendment will occasion no injury to the opposite party, except such as can he sufficiently compensated for by costs or other terms to be imposed by the order. See 1933 Bom 644, 4 I C 726. In 10 C D 393, 396 Bram well, L. J, had stated "I have had much to do in Chambers with applications for leave to amend, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that this humble branch of learning is very familiar to me. 'My practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been satisfied that the party applying wag 'acting mala fide, or that, by his blunder; he had done some injury to his opponent which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise". It does not matter that the original omission arose from negligence or carelessness. "However negligent or careless' may have been the first omission and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs". Practically the same view was adopted by Bowen, L. J. in 26 C D 700 and 711 in the following terms:---

"I "I have found in my experience that there is one panacea which heals every sore in litigation, and that is costs". It is immaterial whether the error sought to be amended was accidental or not. There is no rule limiting amendment to accidental errors".

It appears to me that the learned Senior Sub‑Judge was influenced by the fact that the case was pending for a long time in his Court bet it should be kept in view that the written statement from the defendant came on 8th of January. 1948 though the suit was instituted four years back and the Court could frame issues ten months after the written statement came in. After the issues the record shows that much progress was not made in the disposal of the case. Only a witness or two were examined In such conditions the defendant could not be held responsible for the delay nor delay could be treated as a conclusive factor to reject an application for amend ment. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had omitted tot raise this plea in his original written statement, which he has now advanced to amend his written statement but from what has been argued before me I treat it as an important plea for decision of the case of the defendant. In these circumstances the amendment should have been allowed. I therefore accept this revision and allow the written statement to be amended as desired by the petitioner subject to his paying Rs.'50 as cost to the cost to the opposite party. The parties shall bear their own cost in this Court.

I may take the opportunity to remark that the case is pending for a very long time in the lower Court and it should be expeditiously decided The file shall go back to the Court of the Senior Sub‑Judge and the parties are directed to appear in his Court 14th June 1950.

K.M.A. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.