An amendment incorporating subsequent dispossession and recovery of possession does not alter the suit’s nature or character.

The petitioner-plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 1157 of 2016 seeking declaration of title over the “ka” schedule property, demarcation of that property, appointment of a Survey-Knowing Commissioner, and eviction of the defendant as a licensee from the “ka/1” schedule property.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had forcibly dispossessed her from the “ka” schedule property on 21 February 2018.

The plaintiff therefore applied under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to incorporate the subsequent dispossession and an additional prayer for recovery of possession of the portion containing brick construction covered by tin and asbestos.

By Order No. 23 dated 2 December 2022, the Trial Court rejected the amendment application on the ground that it would transform the suit from one for declaration of title and eviction of a licensee into a suit for recovery of possession.

The plaintiff challenged that order in the present revision.

1. Whether the proposed amendment incorporating the alleged subsequent forcible dispossession and a prayer for recovery of possession would change the nature and character of the suit?

2. Whether the proposed amendment was liable to be rejected on the ground that it would cause prejudice to the defendant?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the court to allow amendment of pleadings where the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.

The governing principle applied was that an amendment should not be refused merely because it introduces facts or relief arising during the pendency of the suit, provided it does not fundamentally alter the nature and character of the action or cause prejudice to the opposite party.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that the competing factual claims—whether the defendant continued in possession as a licensee or forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff—were matters to be established by evidence at trial.

The original suit already concerned the plaintiff’s title and entitlement to recover possession of the disputed property, through a claim for eviction of the alleged licensee.

The proposed amendment arose from an event allegedly occurring after institution of the suit and sought to place that subsequent event before the court, along with a consequential prayer for recovery of possession.

The Court held that the amendment did not introduce an unrelated cause of action or alter the essential controversy concerning the plaintiff’s title and possession.

Whether the defendant was a licensee or had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff were factual matters requiring proof at trial, and the addition of the recovery prayer would assist in effectively adjudicating the dispute.

Since the amendment did not change the nature and character of the suit and did not cause prejudice to the defendant, rejection under Order VI Rule 17 was held to be erroneous.

The plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, filed on 9 August 2019, was allowed, permitting incorporation of the alleged forcible dispossession and the prayer for recovery of possession.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

The revisional application, CO 1028 of 2023, was accordingly disposed of.