SuitNo.

391of2006

IntheCourtofShriTarunYogesh:CivilJudge:Delhi
SuitNo.238/04
IntheMatterof:
SmtSantoshKumari

...Plaintiff

Versus
ShriNitishJaiswal

..Defendants
ORDER

1.

Vide this order I shall dispose off two applications filed by the

plaintiff. ThefirstapplicationunderOrder 6rule17hasbeenfiledfor

amendingtheplaintbyaddingParaNo.3Aafterpara3oftheplaint.Inthe
applicationthe plaintiff hasstatedthatthe omissiontoincorporatepara
no.3Ahadoccurredinadvertentlyduetoclerical error andcouldnot be
detectedearlier.Plaintiffhasfurtherstatedthatproposedamendmentwill
notchangethenatureofthesuitandisnecessaryforthejustandeffective
adjudicationofthecase.
2.

ParaNo.3AwhichissoughttobeaddedintheplaintafterparaNo.3,

readsusunder:
That the plaintiff filed suit for damages and the
reviewapplicationagainstShriTulsiram,whichwas
decidedbytheHon'bleCourtofShri.Gurdeepkumar,
Additional Distt Judge Delhi. That it was
proved/establishedthattheplaintiffpaidthebayana
amountforthepurchaseofpartofsuitpropertyand
alsothatthereexistedprivityofcontractbetweenthe
plaintiffandthesaidShriTulsiram.

Page
1
of4

SuitNo.391of2006

3.

Defendant has remained exparte inthis case andsonoreplyhas

beenfiledtoplaintiff'sapplication.Ihaveperusedtheplaint,inparaNo.3
oftheplaint,theplaintiffhasmentionedthatdefendanthadtakenhertoa
personnamely,Tulsiram,whoshowedhertheplot.Furtherinparano.5of
the plaint, the plaintiff has stated to have paid the bayana amount of
Rs.5,000/toShriTulsiRamagainstthebayanareceiptwhichisplacedon
record.Thereafter,Plaintiff hasexplainedthecircumstancesunderwhich
thedefendanthadplayedfraudwithherandgotthepropertytransferred
intohisnamebymanipulatingthedocuments.
4.

Order6Rule17CPC providesforamendmentsofpleadings. The

provisionsoforder6RuleCPCreadasunder:
The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow
either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such
mannerandonsuchtermsasmaybejust,andallsuch
amendmentsshallbemadeasmaybenecessaryforthe
purposeofdeterminingtherealquestionsincontroversy
between the parties. Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion
thatinspiteof duediligence,thepartycouldnothave
raisedthematterbeforethecommencementoftrial.
5.

In B.K.N.PillaiVs P.PillaiAIR2000SC614(616), theHon'ble

SupremecourtofIndiahasheld that 'allamendmentsofthepleadings

should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real
controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not

Page
2
of4

SuitNo.391of2006

alter for substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the
originalliswasraisedfordefencetaken.'.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthas
furtherheldthat proposedamendmentshouldnotcausesuchprejudice
totheothersidewhichcannotbecompensatedbycostoramountstoor
relatesindefeatingalegalrightaccruingtoaoppositepartyonaccount
oflapseoftime.
6.

Inthepresentcaseathand,theamendmentapplicationunderOrder

6Rule17hasbeen filedatthefagendofthecase,whenthematterhas
beenlistedforfinalorders/judgment.Theproposedamendmentsbywhich
plaintiffseekstoaddparaNo.3Atorefertothesuitfordamagesfiledby
heragainstShriTulsiRamdoesnotalterthecauseofactionorsubstitutesa
newcauseofactionandfurtherdoesnotdefeatanylegalrightwhichhas
accruedtothedefendant.Inherplaint,Plaintiffhasalreadymentionedof
having paid the bayana amount to Shri Tulsi Ram against the bayana
receiptandthroughtheproposedamendment,byaddingparano.3A,the
Plaintiff onlywantstorefertothejudgementofthelearnedADJ Shri
GurdipKumarpassedinhersuitfiledagainstthesaidShriTulsiRam.The
proposed amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in
controversybetweentheparties,soplaintiff'sapplicationisallowedandthe
amendedplaintistakenonrecord.
7.

The other application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking

permissiontoleadadditionalevidencetoprovethetransactionofpayment
ofthebayanaamountofRs.5,000/ toShriTulsiRam,whichhasbeen
admittedbyhimandprovedintheothersuittitledasSantoshKumariVs.
TulsiRam.

Page
3
of4

SuitNo.391of2006

Sinceafterallowingtheamendmentapplication,itbecomesnecessary
toallowtheplaintifftoleadadditionalevidence,hencethisapplicationis
alsoallowedandplaintiffispermittedtoleadadditionalevidenceinthis
regard.
8.

Tocomeupforleadingofadditionalevidenceon24/4/2008.

ANNOUNCEDINOPENCOURT
ON10/4/2008

TARUNYOGESH
CIVILJUDGE/DELHI

Page
4
of4