Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Scope (Paras 9, 12) Amendment of pleadings is permissible provided it does not alter the fundamental nature or character of the suit or introduce a completely new cause of action. Inclusion of a consequential relief already implicit in the original pleadings does not amount to change in nature of the suit.

advocatemmmohan

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Scope (Paras 9, 12)

Amendment of pleadings is permissible provided it does not alter the fundamental nature or character of the suit or introduce a completely new cause of action. Inclusion of a consequential relief already implicit in the original pleadings does not amount to change in nature of the suit.

---

AMENDMENT — CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF — Recovery of possession (Paras 7, 11, 12)

Where the original plaint contains averments of dispossession and seeks removal of superstructure, addition of relief of recovery of possession by amendment is merely consequential and does not change the basic structure of the suit.

---

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 — Section 34 — Requirement to seek further relief (Para 13)

Where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief, such as recovery of possession, a mere declaration and injunction may be insufficient. Amendment to include such consequential relief is necessary to avoid failure of the suit on technical grounds.

---

LIMITATION — Amendment for possession — Within time (Para 14)

An amendment seeking recovery of possession can be allowed if filed within the prescribed limitation period of 12 years from dispossession. Where the amendment is sought within such period, it is not barred by limitation.

---

INCONSISTENT PLEAS — Plaintiffs — Restriction (Paras 10, 15)

While defendants may raise inconsistent pleas, plaintiffs cannot substitute their original case with mutually destructive pleas. However, objections regarding inconsistency in pleadings are matters for trial and not grounds to reject amendment when the amendment itself is limited to consequential relief.

---

AMENDMENT — Effect on accrued rights — Test (Para 15)

Amendment should not be allowed if it takes away a vested right accrued to the opposite party or introduces an entirely new and inconsistent case. Where amendment is limited and does not prejudice such rights, it can be permitted.

---

REVISION — Article 227 — Interference — Scope (Para 16)

Where the trial Court has exercised discretion judiciously in allowing amendment and no legal infirmity is shown, interference under Article 227 is not warranted.

---

FINAL RESULT (Paras 16, 17)

Civil Revision Petition dismissed — Order allowing amendment upheld — No costs.