Court Emphasizes Liberal Approach at Pre-Trial Stage; Amendment from Injunction to Possession Does Not Alter Suit's Basic Nature
In a significant ruling delivered on October 31, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order that allowed amendment of the plaint in a civil suit concerning disputed land in Village Jib, Udhampur. The petitioner, Tara Mani, had opposed the respondent, Radhey Krishan's, application to amend the plaint to include a relief for recovery of possession of allegedly encroached portions of the same suit property.
The original suit filed by Radhey Krishan sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with a 4 kanal 4 marla land parcel, claimed as his exclusive share through a private partition arrangement with co-owners. The petitioner, however, contended ownership of adjoining land and denied any encroachment, asserting longstanding lawful possession.
During the pendency of the suit and before trial commencement, the defendant's application led to the appointment of a Local Commissioner (Tehsildar, Udhampur) who inspected the site and reported encroachment by the defendant over 16 marlas in Khasra No. 1204 and 1 kanal 4 marlas in Khasra No. 1205. Based on this report, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to add a claim for restoration and recovery of possession of these encroached portions.
The trial court allowed the amendment application, prompting the petitioner's challenge on grounds that the amendment altered the fundamental nature of the suit from injunction to recovery of possession, thereby necessitating a fresh suit.
The High Court, referencing Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Supreme Court precedent in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559, held that the amendment did not change the basic nature or character of the suit since both injunction and recovery of possession pertained to the same property dispute. The court underscored the liberal approach mandated at the pre-trial stage to amendments, aimed at determining the real controversy and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
Rejecting the petitioner's contention of jurisdictional excess or illegality by the trial court, the High Court found no perversity or improper exercise of discretion in permitting the amendment. It emphasized that forcing the plaintiff to withdraw and file a fresh suit for possession would cause unnecessary delay and wastage of judicial resources.
Consequently, the petition challenging the amendment was dismissed, affirming that pleadings may be amended pre-trial to include reliefs necessary to resolve the substantive dispute comprehensively.
This ruling reinforces the principle that amendments to pleadings regarding reliefs related to the same subject matter should be allowed liberally to ensure justice and procedural efficiency.
Bottom Line:
Amendment of plaint at pre-trial stage to add relief of recovery/restoration of possession in respect of alleged encroached portion of same suit property does not alter basic nature and character of suit for injunction and should be liberally allowed to determine real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 6, Rule 17; Constitution of India Article 227
Tara Mani v. Radhey Krishan, (J&K And Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3014544
