STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. M.A. BEEGUM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. On hearing the senior counsel on both sides and going through Ext.P6 order I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6order permitting respondents to amend the plaint. It cannot be disputed that a suit on account could be permitted to beamended by converting it…
Judgment
APPENDIXExhibit-P1:-Copy of the plaint in OS 455/2002 on the file of 1st Addl. Sub Court, ThiruvananthapuramExhibit-P2:-Copy of the written statement filed by the defendantsExhibit-P3:-Copy of the judgment in CRP 1952/2002 of this Court. Exhibit-P4:-Copy of the amendment application I.A. 5086/2006Exhibit-P5:-Copy of objection filed by defendants to IA 5086/2006Exhibit-P6:-Copy of the order dt: 12.7.2007 in IA 5086/2006 in OS 455/2002 on the files of the 1st Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.//True Copy//P.A. to Judge M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). No. 27917 of 2007 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008JUDGMENTPetitioners are the defendants in O.S. 455 of 2002 on the file of Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents are the plaintiffs. Suit was originally filed for settlement of accounts. Admittedly respondents, availing the loan sanctioned by petitioners, constructed a building and as per agreement rented out the building so constructed to the petitioners on rent, agreeing to adjust the rent payable towards the amount due under the loan account.
Subsequently, there was dispute between petitioners and respondents on account of demand for surrender of the tenanted building. Petitioners contended that a portion of the leasehold property building was surrendered, which was not accepted by the respondents. Respondents in turn approached the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction under Section 11 of Kerala Building(Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of arrears and WPC27917/072bonafide need. The Rent Control Court as well as AppellateAuthority accepted the case of petitioners that a portion of the leasehold property was surrendered and the subsisting lease is only in respect of the remaining portion. Respondentschallenged that order before this court in CRP 1952 of 2002.The suit was filed when the revision was pending. In the plaint itself respondents sought permission of the court to amend the plaint or the relief subject to the result of the CRP. Under Ext.P3order this court did not accept the case of the petitioners of partial surrender and held that the tenancy subsists in respect of the whole building and petitioners are laible to pay the agreed rent for the entire building.
Subsequently petitioners surrendered the building. After disposal of the revision, respondents filed I.A. 5086 of 2006 under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. The amendment sought for is to convert the suit for account to a suit for realization of arreares of rent due. In support of the said relief relevant allegations are sought to be raised in the plaint to the effect that pursuant to Ext.P3 order of this court, petitioners arelaible to pay the agreed rent for the entire period and as it is not WPC27917/073paid they are entitled to realise the arrears rent. Petition was opposed by the petitioners contending that by the proposed amendment the nature of suit is being altered and new cause ofaction is being added and part of the claim for arrears of rent is barred by time and therefore it cannot be allowed. Under Ext.P6order learned Sub Judge allowed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitutionof India.
Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents were heard.
Operative part
On hearing the senior counsel on both sides and going through Ext.P6 order I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6order permitting respondents to amend the plaint. It cannot be disputed that a suit on account could be permitted to beamended by converting it as a suit for realization of money. Itcannot be disallowed on the ground of altering the nature or character of the suit. Similarly, a new cause of action could be introduced in the plaint by amendment of that cause of action has arisen subsequent to the institution of suit and it is necessary to resolve the dispute in the suit. So also, an WPC27917/074application for amendment to include a plea which is barred bytime could also be allowed, provided defendants are permitted to defend the claim by filing an additional written statement. Insuch circumstances, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the order granting permission to amend the plaint. Petitionersare at liberty to file an additional written statement taking up all the defence available including the plea of bar of limitation, in respect of the claim introduced by the amendment. LearnedSub Judge is to dispose the suit untramelled by any observation by Ext.P6 order. Learned Sub Judge is also to consider in the suit, when the amended portion of the plaint came into effect and whether the claim is barred or not. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGEOkb/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Building(Lease and Rent Control) Act — s. 11; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Jun 2008. The bench was M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.