- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Haridas Aildas Thadani And Others v. Godrej Rustom Kermani .
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff sought to amend his plaint to include a relief for recovery of possession. The District Judge allowed the amendment, finding that it would not cause any grave or serious prejudice to the defendant and would not affect any limitation defence. The defendant challenged this order, and the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the District Judge’s order. The plaintiff then filed the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering, in revision, with the District Judge’s discretionary order allowing amendment of the plaint.
- Whether the proposed amendment would cause serious injustice or prejudice to the defendant so as to warrant refusal under established principles.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363 | The correct test for permitting amendment of pleadings is whether the amendment would cause serious injustice to the other side; courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless irreparable loss would result. | The Court relied on this rule to conclude that the plaintiff’s proposed amendment, causing no serious prejudice, should be allowed and that the District Judge’s discretion was properly exercised. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that:
- The District Judge had exercised “sound discretion” in assessing the absence of grave prejudice to the defendant.
- Allowing insertion of a recovery-of-possession relief did not change the nature of the suit or extinguish any limitation defence available to the defendant.
- Under the principle affirmed in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil, amendments should be granted liberally unless they inflict serious injustice; none was demonstrated here.
- A revisional court should not lightly interfere with such discretionary orders absent cogent reasons or compelling circumstances. The High Court had offered no such grounds.
- Any potential inconvenience to the defendant could be adequately compensated by costs, eliminating the risk of injustice.
On this reasoning, the Court found the High Court’s interference legally erroneous and restored the District Judge’s order.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside, and the District Judge’s order permitting amendment of the plaint is restored.
Implications: The plaintiff must file the amended plaint within one month and pay Rs 4,000 to the defendant as costs, failing which the amendment stands cancelled. The defendant may file additional statements thereafter. The decision reaffirms the liberal approach toward amendments of pleadings and limits revisional interference but does not create new precedent beyond reinforcing established principles.
In this appeal by special leave, after hearing counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the High Court was clearly wrong in setting aside the order of the District Judge who had exercised a sound discretion in allowing the amendment of the plaint sought by the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case. The District Judge clearly found that if the amendment was allowed it would not cause any grave or serious prejudice to the defendant. All that the plaintiff sought by way of amendment was to insert a relief for recovery of possession. Neither the nature of the suit was altered nor was there any question of any valuable right of limitation having accrued to the defendant being taken away by the proposed amendment arise. In case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil AIR 1957 SC 363, 1957 SCR 595, 1957 SCJ 371 this Court has held that the test for allowing the amendment is to find out whether the proposed amendment works any serious injustice to the other side. It is well settled that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It is also clear that a revisional court ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances. We find no such grounds in this case. On the other hand in the instant case, there is absolutely no question of any injustice being done to the defendant if he is compensated by heavy costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the High Court erred in law in interfering in revision by reversing the discretionary order of the District Judge. For these reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the District Judge. The plaintiff will file his amended plaint within a month from today. The plaintiff shall also pay a sum of Rs 4000 as costs to the defendant, failing which the order allowing the appeal and granting amendment will stand cancelled. Costs must be paid within one month from today. The appellant may withdraw the amount of Rs 2000 towards security deposited in this Court. After the amended plaint is filed, additional statements may be filed by the defendant if so advised. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Alert