Case: Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs Vs. M/S. S.K.Sarwagi &amp; Co. Pvt. Ltd. &amp;Anr

that in spite of due diligence could not raise the issue before the commencement of trial and the court satisfies their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial. To put it clear, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso. 6) With this background, let us consider the application filed by the plaintiff and the orders passed by the District Court as well as the High Court. We have already stated that originally the suit was filed against the sole defendant and subsequently the second defendant came on record as per the order dated 11.07.2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule lands. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the suit, notices were exchanged between the parties. In their reply dated 18.8.2001 to the plaintiffs notice, it was specifically asserted that the first respondent herein, namely M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is carrying on mining activities in the suit schedule lands. The perusal of the reply notice issued by D-2 to the plaintiff, which has been extracted by the High Court in the impugned order, clearly shows that the plaintiff was made known that the suit lands were in possession of D-2 having taken them on lease from the Government. With the said information in the reply notice about the mining being carried on by D-2, the plaintiff filed the said suit without impleading him for possession and damages. 7) The other relevant fact to be noted is the plea taken in the written statement filed by D-1 wherein, it is specifically stated that the suit schedule lands are classified as poramboke lands in survey and settlement operations and that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 459 (Industries and Commerce) Department, dated 28.11.1998 leasing out an extent of 18.35 hectares of land covered under Survey Nos.106 and 107 of Ayitham Valasa Village in favour of A.P. Mineral Development Corporation for mining purpose for twenty years. It is further averred that the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 102 (Industries and Commerce) Department, dated 20.2.2001 issued Orders transferring the mining lease held by A.P. Mineral Development Corporation in favour of M/s Sarwagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. for the unexpired period of lease, i.e. upto 1.6.2019. As rightly observed by the High Court, it is explicit from the written statement filed by D-1 that the plaintiff was made known of the fact that the Government issued order transferring mining lease held by A.P. Mineral Development Corporation in favour of M/s Sarwagi and Co. P. Ltd. (D-2) and the leased lands are in possession and enjoyment of M/s Sarwagi & Co. P. Ltd. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, in spite of the plaintiff being put in knowledge of the act of the person in possession of the suit property did not chose to implead the said M/s Sarwagi & Co. P. Ltd. (D-2) which came on record on its own application as D-2 in the suit. It is clear that in spite of reply notice and specific plea taken in the written statement of D-1, the plaintiff did not chose to take steps to get the plaint amended suitably and instead allowed the suit to go on and examined the witnesses on his behalf and cross-examined the witnesses produced by the defendants. Only during the stage of arguments, the plaintiff came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the pleadings. We have already explained the implication of proviso to Rule 17. Though even after commencement of the trial, parties to the proceeding are entitled to seek amendment, in the light of the factual details such as clear information in the reply notice prior to the filing of the suit and specific plea in the written statement of D-1 which contained details of Government Orders leasing out the suit property in favour of D-2, the action of the plaintiff at the stage of argument can not be permitted. Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to adhere to the said recourse at the appropriate time. Further it is relevant to point out that in the original suit, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell the suit schedule property and in the petition filed during the course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from the second defendant. It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 but even on merits his claim is liable to be rejected. All these relevant aspects have been duly considered by the High Court and rightly set aside the order dated 10.3.2004 of the Additional District Judge.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7) The other relevant fact to be noted is the plea taken in the written statement filed by D-1 wherein, it is specifically stated that the suit schedule lands are classified as poramboke lands in survey and settlement operations and that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 459 (Industries and Commerce) Department, dated 28.11.1998 leasing out an extent of 18.35 hectares of land covered under Survey Nos.106 and 107 of Ayitham Valasa Village in favour of A.P. Mineral Development Corporation for mining purpose for twenty years. It is further averred that the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 102 (Industries and Commerce) Department, dated 20.2.2001 issued Orders transferring the mining lease held by A.P. Mineral Development Corporation in favour of M/s Sarwagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. for the unexpired period of lease, i.e. upto 1.6.2019. As rightly observed by the High Court, it is explicit from the written statement filed by D-1 that the plaintiff was made known of the fact that the Government issued order transferring mining lease held by A.P. Mineral Development Corporation in favour of M/s Sarwagi and Co. P. Ltd. (D-2) and the leased lands are in possession and enjoyment of M/s Sarwagi & Co. P. Ltd. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, in spite of the plaintiff being put in knowledge of the act of the person in possession of the suit property did not chose to implead the said M/s Sarwagi & Co. P. Ltd. (D-2) which came on record on its own application as D-2 in the suit. It is clear that in spite of reply notice and specific plea taken in the written statement of D-1, the plaintiff did not chose to take steps to get the plaint amended suitably and instead allowed the suit to go on and examined the witnesses on his behalf and cross-examined the witnesses produced by the defendants. Only during the stage of arguments, the plaintiff came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the pleadings. We have already explained the implication of proviso to Rule 17. Though even after commencement of the trial, parties to the proceeding are entitled to seek amendment, in the light of the factual details such as clear information in the reply notice prior to the filing of the suit and specific plea in the written statement of D-1 which contained details of Government Orders leasing out the suit property in favour of D-2, the action of the plaintiff at the stage of argument can not be permitted. Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to adhere to the said recourse at the appropriate time. Further it is relevant to point out that in the original suit, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell the suit schedule property and in the petition filed during the course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from the second defendant. It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 but even on merits his claim is liable to be rejected. All these relevant aspects have been duly considered by the High Court and rightly set aside the order dated 10.3.2004 of the Additional District Judge.