Madras HC Upholds Amendment Letting Plaintiff Seek Removal Of Wall, Gate Allegedly Encroaching On Common Pathway

The plaintiff sued for a declaration concerning a common pathway and a permanent injunction against obstruction of it.

During the suit, she sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to plead that the defendants had constructed a compound wall and erected an iron gate obstructing the pathway, and to add prayers for mandatory injunctions requiring their removal.

The defendants opposed the amendment, contending that the structures had existed for over 12 years and that the amendment introduced a new, time-barred claim.

The Trial Court allowed the amendment; the defendants challenged that order in this revision.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It stated that, before commencement of trial, an application to amend pleadings should be considered liberally, provided the proposed amendment does not introduce an entirely new case or fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The original plaint referred to a stone revetment, while the defendants’ written statement also referred to that revetment but did not specifically mention a compound wall or iron gate.

Although the defendants asserted in their amendment-opposition counter that the wall and gate had existed for more than 12 years, the Court held that their allegation that the plaintiff had deliberately misdescribed those structures could not be accepted at this stage.

As trial had not commenced, and the proposed amendments concerned obstructions to the same pathway already in dispute, the Court found that they did not introduce a new cause of action or fundamentally change the suit.

The competing factual claims could be determined at trial.

It granted the defendants liberty to file an additional written statement and raise their objections at trial.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.