Petitioner (Piaintiff) Rsspondsnt HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH. BILASPUR Wrif Petition (227) No.14S6 of 2010 Smt.Anita Devi, wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawai, aged about 40 years, proprietor of Hotel Centre Point, Transport Nagar, Korba, Post, Tehsi! & District Korba (CG) Vsrsus Punjab & Sindh Bank, through the Branch Manager, Korba, Transport Nagar Stadium Road, Korba, Post, Tehsil & District Korba (CG) ^,'Vrit Pstition under Articis 227 ofihe Constitution of india} ^v [vir.B.P.Sharma, counsel for the peistloner. nsrAnand Shukla, CQunsei for the respondent. Sir^e^Rch: Hop'Die_Mf^T^.^har??ia ORALOEDER (21-7-2010) 2. By ihis petition, the petitioner has chailengsd ths tegaiity & propriety of the order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the 2 Additionai Distrirt Judge (FTC), Korba, 'ih Civii Suit No.tA/07, •A'hsreby the appiicstion for amendment fiied under Order 6 Rute 17 of the Cods of Civii Procedure, 190s (in short 'the Code') was ejismissed by the Court beiow on the ground ihat if the amenciment appiication is aiiowed, then naiure of suit would tse changed. 3. Learned counsel for ths petitioner submits that suit for sviction and arrears of rent fiied by the petitioner is pending before the Court beiow against the respondent in v/hteh on the ground cf deiay in sviction, t'ne psffiioner has fiied smendment appiication for Rs.50,000,'- per month as damages, whieh has been refusad by the Court be!o*,v. Lsamed counsei furthsr submits that ndrnialiy parties are not permitted before conRmencement of the trsai, but in exceptiona! circumstances amendmsnt of the pieading ss permitted even after commencemsnt of-the tria! in terms of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code. Learned counssi placed reiiance in the matter of Revajeetu Builders and Deveiopers v; Narayanaswamy and sons aad others {(20S9) 10 SCC 84} in which the Apsx Court has aliov/ed ths amsndment and has issued guideiines in paras 62 snd 63 of the said judgment. Learned counsei contended that amendment is necessary tor just decision oftte case and any inconvenience to the opposite party may be compensated by imposing cost. On the other hand, learnsd counset for tte respondsnt subm'rts that initialiy the suit was fiisd for possession of tenanted house and recovery cf the rent, but subsequent stage by filing the appiication for amendment the petilaoner has tried to change the naturs of suit by adding ciaim of compensatioR. Lsarned counsel further submits that the pstitioner has faiied to show the reason as to why he has r.ot fited such petition or not ciaimsd compensatten at fhe time of fiiing of the suit. As per tiie provisions of Ordsr 6 RU!S 17 of ifte Code, nonriaiSy ths parties ars not permitted fo amend ths pieading after commencement of th®procesding, but in suitable cases, the parties may b® permitteci for amendment even after commencement of the procssdmg in terms of Order 6 RuSe -1.7 of the Code. Whiie deaiing with the question of amsndment in pieading at subsequent stage aftsr fii'.ng of ths suft, the Apex Court sn the rnatter of Revajsetu Bui'.ders and DeveSopers (supra) has hesd that ths Court is una'er obligation to aiSow the amsndment necessaiy for detsrmination of queslion in controversy or for proper and effsctive adjudication of the case. Amsndment shouid noS cause such prejudtee to the other side w'nich cannot &e compensated adsquat^y 'in tsrms of money, but at the same time the Court is required to see that whether amendment is maia fide, worthiess or dishonest. Paras 62 & 63 of 1he said judgment reati as under:- "62.The purpose of impossng costs is fo: (a) discourage maia fids amwidments designed to dsiay ths iagai (b) compensate the othsr pariy for the dstay and ihe inconvsnrence causea; (c) compensate ttie olher party for avo"i<tefcte expenses on the iitigation whlch had to 'oe incurred by the opposits party for opposing the amendmsnt; and (d) to send a ciear message Siat fte partiss have to be carefu! whiie drafUng the originai pieadings. Factors to be taksn into consideration 'A'hlie deailng v/itti appiication for amendments 63. On criticaiiy aRaiyzing both ths Engiish and indian casss, some basic princlpies emerge v/hteh ought to &e taken into consicisration whiie aiiowing or rejecting ths application for an-iendment R/- (1) whsttsr the amendment soyght is irapsrative for propsr and effective adjudication ofthe case; (2) whether the appiication for amsndment is bona fide or maia flde; (3) iho amendmsnt shouid not cause such prejudics to the other side whteh cannot bs compensated adequstely in terms ef money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact Sead to injustice or iead to muitipte iitigatson; (5) whefher fhe propossd ameridmeRt consiitufionaliy or fundamentaiiy changes the nature and character of ths case; and (6) as a generaS rate, the court shousd decline amendmsnts If a fresh suit on the amended ciaims v/ould bs barred by iimitation on the dafe of appiicsfion. These are soms of the important factore which may be kept in minti whiie deasing wsth appiication fiies under Order 6 Ruie 17. These are oniy HiusfrativQ and not axhaustivs." 6 Sn the present case, the parties have not ciosed their evidence. Amsndment sought by ths petitioner is reiating to ciaim of compensation on account of detey in eviction of ths suit premises. Such amendmsnt v/ii! not change the naturs of suit, but definSefy the petittonsr has fiisd amsndment appiication at subssquent stage. Considering the aforssaid fact, adequate compensatton would mest ths ends of justice. 7. Consequentiy, the pstition is aiiov^d. Ordsr impugned is hsreby sei as'ids. Amendment as praysd by the peiitionsr in ths piasnt is aitowed,subject to the payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- psyabie to the respondsnt hereln within thirty days from today. The Court beiow is directsd to provsde opportunity of consequsntiai amsndment to the opposits party and dscids the suit on ite owrs merit. No order as to costs. 'Sd/- ^p.Sharaia ludse ^