DELWAR HOSSAIN vs Maulvi ABDUL JALIL CHOWDHURY AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of East Pakistan, which upheld a trial court's decision to allow an amendment to a plaint. The original suit was filed for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession regarding a single plot of land. During the hearing, after the plaintiff's examination, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include an additional plot and increase the suit's valuation. The petitioner opposed this, arguing that the amendment introduced a new case and prejudiced their rights regarding the limitation period. The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment fundamentally altered the suit's character or unfairly deprived the petitioner of vested rights. The Court held that the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit and that the petitioner suffered no prejudice, as they were granted leave to file an additional written statement to raise any limitation defenses. The petition was dismissed, affirming that procedural amendments allowing for the inclusion of property are permissible provided the defendant is not deprived of the opportunity to contest the new claims.
- Does an amendment to a plaint that adds a new plot of land and increases the suit valuation fundamentally alter the character of the suit?
- Can a defendant raise the issue of limitation in an additional written statement following an amendment to the plaint?
- Is an amendment to a plaint permissible if it does not cause prejudice to the defendant's ability to raise available defenses?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan in an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed against an order of a Munsif at Patiya allowing a prayer for amendment of a plaint in a suit pending before him.
2. The suit, which was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with a prayer for injunction was in respect of only one plot, namely, R. S. Plot No. 2042, as mentioned in the Schedule.
3. The plaintiff sought, after his own examination at the hearing of the suit, to amend the plaint by including in its Schedule another plot namely, R. S. Plot No. 2945 which covered C. S. Plot No. 2043 and to raise the value of the suit.
4. This amendment was opposed on the ground that it would set up a new case and would defeat a right which had accrued to the other side by lapse of time. The learned Munsif took the view that nothing of the kind would happen and allowed the amendment. The High Court agreed with this view and dismissed the revisional application. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment was wrongly allowed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition but are unable to agree with him that the amendment sought, would, in any way, alter the character of the suit or take away a right which had become vested in the petitioner by lapse of time.
5. The petitioner has been permitted to life an additional written statement. If any question of limitation does arise, he will be at liberty to raise the same in his additional written statement. No prejudice has, therefore, been caused nor has he been shut out, in any way, from raising the defenses which may be available to him in respect of the added plot.
6. There is no substance in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.