Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10161 of 2014)

Mount Mary Enterprises .   ... Appellant

Versus

M/s. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.        ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Leave granted.

1. The appellant, the original plaintiff has been aggrieved by  

the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.12099 of 2013 dated  

10th March, 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.  

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell  

are as under:

The  appellant,  who  has  been  described  as  a  plaintiff  

hereinafter, filed a suit against the present respondent, who has  

been  hereinafter  described  as  a  defendant,  for  specific  

performance of a contract in relation to the suit property.  The  

suit  property  was  initially  valued  at  Rs.13,50,000/-  (Rupees  

Thirteen lacs and fifty thousand only).   The plaintiff, thereafter,

Page 2

2

realized  that  market  value  of  the  property  in  question  was  

around  Rs.1,20,00,000/-  (Rupees  One  Crore  and  Twenty  lacs  

only) and therefore, filed an application for amending the plaint.  

The said application for amendment was rejected by the trial  

court and thereafter, the aforestated writ petition was filed by  

the  plaintiff  challenging  the  order  rejecting  the  amendment  

application.   The  said  petition  has  also  been  dismissed  and  

therefore,  the plaintiff  has approached this Court and prayed  

that the impugned judgment confirming the order rejecting the  

amendment  of  the  plaint  be  set  aside  and  the  plaintiff  be  

permitted to amend the plaint so as to state correct value of the  

property in question, which is Rs.1,20,00,000/-.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff  

had  submitted  that  the  amendment  application  had  been  

rejected  by  the  trial  court  for  the  reason  that  the  said  

amendment was made at a belated stage and by virtue of the  

said  amendment,  the suit  was to  be  transferred to  the  High  

Court on its original side.  It had been further submitted that the  

amendment was made in good faith and by virtue of the said  

amendment no harm was to be caused to the defendant and  

the nature of the suit was also not going to be changed.  It had

Page 3

3

been further submitted that the appellant was also prepared to  

affix  additional  court  fee  stamp  as  valuation  of  suit  was  

increased to Rs.1,20,00,000/-.

4. It had been also submitted by the learned counsel that in  

normal  circumstances  an  amendment  application  is  always  

granted unless by virtue of the amendment, nature of the suit is  

changed or some irreparable harm is caused to the defendant.  

According to him, in the instant case neither nature of the suit  

was changed nor was the defendant being put to any hardship.  

The amendment was also not likely to cause any prejudice to  

the defendant.  The amendment which was sought to be made  

was just and proper because actual market value of the said  

property was Rs.1,20,00,000/-.  For the aforesaid reasons, it had  

been submitted by him that the impugned judgment confirming  

the order  rejecting the amendment application should be set  

aside  and  the  appellant  should  be  permitted  to  amend  the  

plaint.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent-defendant  had  submitted  that  the  amendment  

application was filed at a belated stage with an oblique motive.

Page 4

4

According to him, in pursuance of the said amendment, the suit  

was  to  be  transferred  to  the  High  Court  and  only  with  an  

intention to see that the suit is transferred to the High Court on  

its original side, the plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint.  It had,  

therefore,  been  submitted  by  him  that  the  amendment  

application was rightly rejected by the trial court and the High  

Court had rightly confirmed the said order.   

6. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  and  have  also  

considered the facts of the case.   

7. In our opinion, as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of  

the Civil Procedure Code, the amendment application should be  

normally granted unless by virtue of the amendment nature of  

the  suit  is  changed  or  some  prejudice  is  caused  to  the  

defendant.  In the instant case, the nature of the suit was not to  

be changed by virtue of granting the amendment application  

because the suit was for specific performance and initially the  

property had been valued at Rs.13,50,000/- but as the market  

value  of  the  property  was  actually  Rs.1,20,00,000/-,  the  

appellant-plaintiff had submitted an application for amendment  

so as to give the correct value of the suit property in the plaint.  

Page 5

5

8. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant had made  

an averment in para 30 of the written statement filed in Suit  

No.1955 of 2010 that the plaintiff had undervalued the subject  

matter of the suit.  It had been further submitted in the written  

statement that the market value of the suit property was much  

higher than Rs. 14 lacs.  The defendant had paid Rs.13.5 lacs  

for the said premises in the year 2002 when the said premises  

had been occupied by a tenant bank.  Even according to the  

defendant value of the suit property had been undervalued by  

the plaintiff in the plaint.  If in pursuance of the averment made  

in  the  written  statement  the  plaintiff  wanted  to  amend  the  

plaint  so  as  to  incorporate  correct  market  value  of  the  suit  

property,  the  defendant  could  not  have  objected  to  the  

amendment  application  whereby  the  plaintiff  wanted  to  

incorporate correct value of the suit property in the plaint by  

way of an amendment.   The other contention that the valuation  

had already been settled cannot also be appreciated since the  

High Court has held that the said issue was yet to be decided by  

the trial Court.

9. The main reason assigned by the trial court for rejection

Page 6

6

of the amendment application was that upon enhancement of  

the valuation of the suit property, the suit was to be transferred  

to the High Court on its original side.  In our view, that is not a  

reason for which the amendment application should have been  

rejected.   With regard to amendment of  plaint,  the following  

observation has been made by this Court in the case of North  

Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v.  Bhagwan  

Das (D) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 :  

“16. Insofar  as  the  principles  which  govern  the  question  of  granting  or  disallowing  amendments  under  Order  6  Rule  17  C.P.C.  (as  it  stood  at  the  relevant  time)  are  concerned,  these  are  also  well  settled.   Order  6  Rule  17  C.P.C.  postulates  amendment  of  pleadings  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings.  In  Pirgonda  Hongonda  Patil v.  Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (1957) 1  SCR 595 which still holds the filed, it was held that  all  amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy  the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the  other  side,  and  (b)  of  being  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  real  questions  in  controversy  between  the  parties.   Amendments  should be refused only where the other party cannot  be placed in the same position as if the pleading had  been originally  correct,  but  the amendment  would  cause  him  an  injury  which  could  not  be  compensated in costs.”  

10. In  our  opinion,  on  the  basis  of  the  aforestated  legal  

position,  the  amendment  application  made  by  the  plaintiff  

should have been granted, especially in view of the fact that it

Page 7

7

was admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was initially  

undervalued  in  the  plaint  and  by  virtue  of  the  amendment  

application, the plaintiff wanted to correct the error and wanted  

to place correct market value of the suit property in the plaint.

11. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the  

amendment application should not have been rejected by the  

trial court and the High Court should not have confirmed the  

order  of  rejection.   We,  therefore,  set  aside  the  impugned  

judgment delivered by the High Court and the order dated 22nd  

November,  2013  of  the  trial  court,  whereby  the  amendment  

application had been rejected.

12 We allow the appeal and direct the trial court to permit  

the appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint as prayed for in the  

amendment application so as to change valuation of the suit  

property. There is no order as to costs.  

         ………..……………….J      (ANIL R. DAVE)

    …..…………………….J

Page 8

8

    (KURIAN JOSEPH) NEW DELHI; JANUARY 30, 2015