Amendment to convert suit for specific performance into claim for land acquisition compensation is impermissible.

The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance based on a registered agreement to sell dated 01.02.1996 for land in Dahej.

During the pendency of the suit, the land was acquired by GIDC (respondents No. 2 and 3).

The plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to implead GIDC and the Land Acquisition Officer as defendants and to claim the compensation amount (approx. ₹5.80 Crores) instead of specific performance.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 20.01.2025.

The petitioners challenged this rejection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the proposed amendment to substitute a prayer for specific performance with a claim for land acquisition compensation significantly alters the nature and character of the suit.

2. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for lack of a link between the original cause of action and the proposed amendment.

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the amendment of pleadings.

While amendments are generally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, they cannot be permitted if they "alter the nature of the suit" or change the "entire complexion of the dispute".

The court emphasized that a formal amendment is permissible only if it maintains a "link" with the original cause of action.

The High Court observed that the original suit was limited to specific performance and declaration against a private party.

The proposed amendment sought to implead government authorities and challenged the disbursement of compensation, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the acquisition funds.

The Court reasoned that there was "no link between the cause of action of the suit and proposed amendment".

It held that allowing such an amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the suit from a contract-based dispute to a land acquisition compensation dispute.

The Court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Trial Court’s findings.

The Court held that the amendment was "devoid of merits" as it would alter the suit's nature.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate separate appropriate legal proceedings to claim entitlement to the compensation before the relevant authority.