Averments supporting an existing relief should be allowed where they cause no prejudice.

The petitioner, as plaintiff in O.S. No. 60 of 2013, initially sought a declaration of his right to use a cart track and a permanent injunction.

After an Advocate Commissioner’s report, he amended the plaint to seek a mandatory injunction for removal of an iron gate erected by the fourth defendant.

He then filed I.A. No. 754 of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add averments supporting that relief. The District Munsif allowed only proposed paragraph 7, finding the other proposed amendments already present, and imposed costs.

The plaintiff’s subsequent application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC, seeking correction of the order on the basis that paragraphs 1–6 had not been incorporated, was dismissed.

He challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the order allowing only proposed paragraph 7 should be modified to permit incorporation of proposed paragraphs 4–6, which the plaintiff said contained averments supporting the already-allowed mandatory-injunction relief.

Whether any separate order was required on the challenge to the dismissal of I.A. No. 10 of 2022 once the order in I.A. No. 754 of 2016 was modified.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Sections 151 and 152 CPC were invoked in the plaintiff’s later application, although the Court did not separately analyse their scope.

The Court applied the principle that where a substantive relief has already been included in the plaint, averments necessary to support that relief may be incorporated; whether the plaintiff ultimately establishes entitlement to the relief remains for determination on the merits.

The mandatory-injunction relief had already been allowed and included in the plaint; I.A. No. 754 of 2016 concerned averments to support that relief.

The Court found that proposed paragraphs 4–6 should also be incorporated because their inclusion would not prejudice the defendants, while the plaintiff’s entitlement to the injunction would remain for decision at trial.

Since the dismissal of I.A. No. 10 of 2022 was consequential on the original order, modification of that order made separate further relief on the second revision unnecessary.

The modified order also covered CRP No. 376 of 2023, with no further order required on that petition.

The District Munsif was directed to dispose of O.S. No. 60 of 2013 within four months of receiving the order and to file a compliance report. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.