MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI & Ors. v. NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS & Ors.

Judgment

[2015) 4 S.C.R. 974 A B MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI AND OTHERS v. NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS Civil Appeal No. 2366 of 2010 MAY 14, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 r. 17 - C Amendment of plaint - Appellant no. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of suit properly on the basis of Will - Application for amendment of plaint filed by appellant no.1 to make appellant no.2 to 5 entitled to D suit properly on the basis of inheritance - High Courl held that it was not in the interest of justice to allow the application for amendment as it would totally change the character of the plaint after lapse of more than 40 years - Held: The Courl always gives relief to amend the pleading E of the parly, unless it is satisfied that the parly applying was acting malafide - High Courl ought not to have rejected the amendment application - Matter remitted back to High Courl for consideration afresh - Pleadings - Amendment of.

F Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration G of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless H 974 MAHILA RAMKALI DEVI v. NANDRAM (D) THR. LRS. 975 it is satisfied that the party applying was acting A malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. The High Court ought not to have rejected the application. [paras 20, 21) [984-f-h; 985-a]