Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court says amendment was sought before trial began, arose from same transaction, and caused no irremediable prejudice to tenant
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order that allowed a landlord to amend an ejectment suit to include a claim for mesne profits at Rs. 50,000 per month.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary held that the trial had not yet commenced, as issues were still to be framed, and therefore the restrictive proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, did not apply. The Court said amendments necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties can be permitted at this stage.
The dispute arose from a suit filed for ejectment and permanent injunction concerning a shop in Srinagar allegedly occupied by the tenant after expiry of the rent deed. During the pendency of the case, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to expressly add relief for mesne profits, along with corresponding changes in the pleadings, valuation clause and prayer clause. The tenant opposed the move, arguing that it would introduce a new case, enlarge the scope of the suit and cause prejudice.
Rejecting these objections, the High Court observed that the proposed amendment did not bring in a foreign cause of action. The Court noted that the plaint already referred to notices issued to the tenant and to the plaintiff’s entitlement arising from continued unauthorized occupation. The added relief of mesne profits was held to arise from the same transaction and the same subject matter as the original suit for ejectment.
The Court also made it clear that it would not examine the merits of the mesne profits claim at the amendment stage. Whether the landlord is entitled to such profits, the rate claimed, and the relevant period are matters for trial and evidence, not for deciding an Order VI Rule 17 application.
On the question of prejudice, the Court said the tenant would have an opportunity to file an amended written statement and raise all available defenses. Mere addition of the mesne profits claim, the Court held, did not cause such prejudice as could not be cured.
Emphasizing the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court said interference with an interlocutory order is warranted only when the subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction, or commits manifest illegality or perversity. Since the trial court had considered the pleadings and given reasons for allowing the amendment, its order did not suffer from any such defect.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, upheld the trial court’s order dated 12 February 2024, and vacated the interim direction earlier granted. It also clarified that its observations were confined only to the amendment issue and would not affect the merits of the parties’ claims and defenses.
Bottom Line :
Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed before commencement of trial; where issues are yet to be framed, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is not attracted. Addition of relief of mesne profits in an ejectment suit, arising from same transaction and existing pleadings, does not change nature of suit. Interference under Article 227 is not warranted absent jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality.
Statutory provision(s): Order VI Rule 17 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Zahoor Ahmad Dar v. Mymoona, (Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985260
