OF J UDI CATURE FOR RAJ ASTHAN AT J AI PUR BENCH & Anr. v. T he Addl. Civil Judge (JD ) & Ors.

8th May, 2012 HON' BLE MR. J USTI CE MAHESH BHAGWATI REPORTABLE Mr . Kaml ak ar Shar ma Seni or Couns el wi t h Ms . Al ank r i t a Shama, f or t he pet i t i oner s . Mr . Mamr aj J at , f or t he r es pondent s . Chal l enge i n t hi s wr i t pet i t i on i s t o t he or der dat ed 13t h Apr i l , 2009, wher eby t he Addi t i onal Ci v i l J udge ( J r . Di v i s i on) No. 3, J ai pur Ci t y , J ai pur , di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on of t he pet i t i oner s - pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed under Or der 6 Rul e 17 of CPC.

Shor n of unnec es s ar y det ai l s , t he f ac t s of t he c as e, i n br i ef ar e t hat t he pet i t i oner s - pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a c i v i l s ui t i n t he c our t Addi t i onal Ci v i l J udge ( J r . Di v i s i on) , No. 3, J ai pur Ci t y , J ai pur , s eek i ng per manent i nj unc t i on agai ns t t he r es pondent s - def endant s t oget her wi t h an appl i c at i on of t empor ar y i nj unc t i on under Or der 39 Rul e 1 and 2 of CPC. Dur i ng t he pendenc y of t he s ui t , t he pet i t i oner s - 2 pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed an appl i c at i on under Or der S.B. CWP No. 6548/2009 6 Rul e 17 of CPC s eek i ng an amendment i n t he pl ai nt , t he l ear ned t r i al c our t di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on v i de or der dat ed 13t h Apr i l , 2009, whi c h has been i mpugned.

Hear d t he l ear ned c ouns el f or t he par t i es and c ar ef ul l y per us ed t he r el ev ant mat er i al on r ec or d i nc l udi ng t he i mpugned or der .

Lear ned c ouns el f or t he pet i t i oner s c anv as s ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s ex ec ut ed a bank guar ant ee i n f av our of t he def endant no. 1 M/ s . Sona Pr oc es s or s ( I ndi a) Lt d. , f or an amount of Rs . 8 l ac s . The bank guar ant ee was gi v en f or a s pec i f i c pur pos e agai ns t any f i nal demand c onf i r med by t he appr opr i at e aut hor i t y upt o CESTAT and Supr eme Cour t of I ndi a, i n c onnec t i on wi t h t he ex i s t i ng s how c aus e not i c e V( 55) / Sei z e/ 9/ 2003/ 4317 & 18 and or der i n Or i gi nal No. 197104/ 05 dat ed 1s t J une, 2004 and r ev i ew or der dat ed 17t h May , 2005 r egar di ng i nv es t i gat i on made dur i ng t he per i od f r om 26t h Nov ember , 2002 t o 30t h Nov ember , 2002 by of f i c er s of Cent r al Ex c i s e Depar t ment , Bhi l war a. Dur i ng t he pendenc y of t he s ui t , t he appl i c at i on wi t h r egar d t o 3 S.B. CWP No.

E c onv er s o, t he l ear ned c ouns el f or t he r es pondent def ended t he i mpugned or der 5 and s t at ed t he s ame t o be j us t and pr oper . S.B. CWP No. 6548/2009 Lear ned c ouns el f ur t her c ont ended t hat i n c as e, t he amendment as s ought t he pet i t i oner s i s al l owed, i t wi l l c hange t he nat ur e of t he s ui t and wi l l c aus e pr ej udi c e t o hi m. The i mpugned or der i s per f ec t , whi c h s houl d not be i nt er f er ed wi t h.

Hav i ng r ef l ec t ed ov er t he s ubmi s s i ons made at t he bar and c ar ef ul l y s c anned t he r el ev ant mat er i al r ec or d i nc l udi ng t he i mpugned or der , i t i s r ev eal ed t hat on 18t h Oc t ober , 2007, t he l ear ned t r i al c our t di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on of t empor ar y i nj unc t i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner s - pl ai nt i f f s under Or der 39 Rul e 1 and 2 of CPC and s oon t her eaf t er , t he r es pondent no. 2 enc as hed t he bank guar ant ee of Rs . 8 l ac s and obt ai ned t he pay ment f r om t he r es pondent no. 3 Punj ab Nat i onal Bank . A bar e r eadi ng of t he pr ay er par t of t he pl ai nt s ugges t s t hat t he pet i t i oner s - pl ai nt i f f s had pr ay ed f or per manent i nj unc t i on r es t r ai ni ng r es pondent no. 1 f r om enc as hi ng t he bank guar ant ee and f ur t her r es t r ai ni ng t he r es pondent no. 3 Punj ab Nat i onal Bank f r om mak i ng pay ment t her eof t o t he r es pondent no. 2. I f t he r el i ef , as s ought f or got f r us t r at ed by way 6 of get t i ng enc has ment of bank guar ant ee on a S.B. CWP No. 6548/2009 s ubs equent dat e t o t he f i l i ng of t he s ui t , t hen i t c annot be s ai d t hat a s epar at e c aus e ac t i on had ar i s en and t he amendment c ommens ur at i ng t o t he s ubs equent dev el opment c oul d not be per mi t t ed.

I n t he c as e of Vineet Kumar versus Mangal Sain Wadhera r epor t ed i n (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 352, t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t obs er v ed t hus : - t o t he amendment

Nor mal l y amendment i n pl ai nt i s not al l owed i f i t c hanges t he c aus e of ac t i on. Howev er , wher e does not c ons t i t ut e an addi t i on of a new c aus e of ac t i on, or r ai s e a new c as e, but amount s t o no mor e t han addi ng f ac t s t he t he al r eady on amendment woul d be al l owed ev en af t er t he s t at ut or y per i od of l i mi t at i on. Pr oc es s ual j us t i c e r equi r es t he event s and t hat dev el opment s s ubs equent t o t he i ns t i t ut i on of pr oc eedi ngs mus t be t aken i nt o consi der at i on i n appr opr i at e c as es t o pr omot e s ubs t ant i al j us t i c e.

t he r ec or d,

Si mi l ar l y , i n t he c as e of North Eastern Railway, Administration, Gorakhpur versus Bhagwan Das (Dead) By Lrs. r epor t ed 7 i n (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511, t he S.B. CWP No. 6548/2009 Hon' bl e Apex Cour t c aut i oned t he c our t s t o k eep br oad pr i nc i pl es i n v i ew wi t h r egar d t o per mi t t i ng t he amendment i n t he r el i ef s ought f or and hel d t hus : - i t t he pr oc eedi ngs . t he pr i nci pl es “ 16. I nsof ar as t he ques t i on of whi c h gov er n di sal l owi ng gr ant i ng amendment s under Or der 6 Rul e 17 CPC ( as t he st ood at t i me) ar e c onc er ned, r el ev ant t hes e ar e al s o wel l s et t l ed. Or der 6 Rul e 17 CPC pos t ul at es amendment of pl eadi ngs at any s t age of I n Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil whi c h s t i l l hol ds t he f i el d, i t was hel d t hat al l amendment s ought t o be al l owed whi ch sat i sf y t he t wo condi t i ons: wor ki ng i nj ust i ce t o t he ot her si de, bei ng ( b) t he pur pos e of nec es s ar y det er mi ni ng t he r eal ques t i ons t he i n cont r over sy bet ween Amendment s s houl d be par t i es . r ef used onl y wher e t he ot her par t y c annot be pl ac ed i n t he s ame pos i t i on as t he pl eadi ng had been or i gi nal l y t he amendment c or r ec t , woul d c aus e hi m an i nj ur y whi c h i n c oul d not c os t s . be c ompens at ed f or ( a) i f 8 S.B. CWP No. 6548/2009

I n t he c as e of Sampath Kumar versus Ayyakannu and Another r epor t ed i n AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3369, t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t obs er v ed t hat i f t her e i s no c hange i n t he nat ur e of t he s ui t and s i mpl y a c hange i n t he nat ur e of r el i ef s ought f or by t he pl ai nt i f f and i t was open f or t he pl ai nt i f f t o f i l e a f r es h s ui t , t he t r i al c our t s houl d r ef us e t he pr ay er f or amendment . The Hon' bl e Apex Cour t obs er v ed t hat : t o f or f i l e per mi ssi bl e i n a new sui t

We f ai l t o under st and, i f i t t he i s pl ai nt i f f i ndependent s ui t , why t he s ame whi ch coul d be pr ayed r el i ef f or cannot be per mi t t ed t o be i nc or por at ed i n t he pendi ng s ui t . I N t he f ac t s t he ci r cumst ances of pr es ent , al l owi ng t he amendment woul d c ur t ai l mul t i pl i c i t y of l egal pr oc eedi ngs .

Adv er t i ng t o t he f ac t s of t he i ns t ant c as e, i t i s f ound t hat i n c as e, t he amendment s ought f or by t he pl ai nt i f f s i s al l owed, i t s hal l not al t er t he nat ur e of t he s ui t , but wi l l s i mpl y c hange t he nat ur e of r el i ef s ought f or by t he pl ai nt i f f . The l ear ned t r i al c our t , i n t he f ac t s and c i r c ums t anc e of t he c as e, t hus , 9 S.B. CWP No. 6548/2009 c ommi t t ed a gr av e er r or i n r ef us i ng t he amendment s ought f or by t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t he pl ai nt . The t r i al c our t i n t he f ac t s and c i r c ums t anc es of t he c as e, t o hav e al l owed t he s ai d amendment . I t s eems t hat t he c our t c oul d not anal y z e t he s ubs equent ev ent i n i t s r i ght per s pec t i v e and i t , t her ef or e, er r ed i n di s al l owi ng t he amendment . The i mpugned or der s uf f er s f r om an i nf i r mi t y , whi c h des er v es t o be s et as i de.

For t he r eas ons s t at ed abov e, t he wr i t pet i t i on i s al l owed and t he i mpugned or der dat ed 13t h Apr i l , 2009 r ender ed by t he t he Addi t i onal Ci v i l J udge ( J r . Di v i s i on) No. 3, J ai pur Ci t y , J ai pur , s t ands s et as i de. Mak/- 43 ( MAHESH BHAGWATI ) , J . All Corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Anil Makawana Jr. Personal Assistant