GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM v. SUBHASH CHANDRAN

The amendment, according to the plaintiff, wasnecessitated on the basis of the findings made by the Commissionerthat some more area than what was covered by the acquisitionproceedings and records therein had been taken from his property. The application for amendment was vehemently opposed by thedefendants raising among other contentions, the amendment soughtfor after the trial commenced is violative of the provision under OrderVI Rule 17 C.P.C. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P5 order allowing the amendment. Impeaching thecorrectness of the order contending that it is improper and not legaland no reason has been set out for allowing the amendment, thedefendants have filed this Writ Petition invoking the supervisoryjurisdiction of this court for annulling that order.3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is submitted bythe learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that for a proper and W.P.C.No.7271/09 - 3 -complete adjudication of the disputes involved, the proposedamendment sought for, which was allowed by the court below, isabsolutely essential and there is no ground for interfering with theorder passed by the learned Sub Judge.

On the other hand, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners pointing out that a cryptic orderhas been passed by the learned Sub Judge without adverting to theserious objections raised by the defendants and also overlooking theembargo covered by Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. that once the trialstarted, the amendment of the pleading in the absence of exceptionalcircumstances should not be entertained. Having regard to thesubmissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances, Ifind that rather than driving the plaintiff to a separate suit for a fairand proper adjudication of the suit resolving whatever disputeexisting between the parties in respect of the subject matter, theamendment sought for by the plaintiff and allowed by the learned SubJudge was essential. So much so, I cannot find fault with the orderpassed by the learned Sub Judge though he could have consideredthe objections and given a reasoned order why the amendment hasto be allowed.

Discretion exercised by the learned Sub Judge inallowing the amendment application though it was belatedly filed, in W.P.C.No.7271/09 - 4 -the given facts of the case, does not call for any interference. Naturally, the defendants will get reasonable opportunity to fileadditional written statement to the amendment once it isincorporated in the plaint. However, a grievance is raised by thelearned counsel for the defendants that the suit is prolonged in viewof the proposed amendment and there is no finality of the litigation. The learned Sub Judge is directed to give top priority to the hearingof the suit and dispose it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of this judgment after affordingsufficient opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support oftheir respective case. The Writ Petition is disposed as above.srdS.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE