PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR INSC 319

PURAN RAM vs BHAGURAM AND ANR (2008)

Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1960 Appellant: Puran Ram Respondent: Bhaguram and Anr

FACTS

This appeal relates to rejection of an application for amendment of plaint in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by which the High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, had reversed the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. The description of a part of the suit property was found to be a mutual mistake and thus, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint and give the description of the suit property as Chak No. 3 SLM instead of Chak No. 3 SSM. In the Trial Court, the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowed the amendment application. The Rajasthan High Court, exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, reversed the trial court's decision, rejecting the amendment on grounds of limitation and potential change in the suit's nature. Thus, the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES Whether the application for amendment of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the allegations made in the plaint could be rejected?

Whether it was open to the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution to reverse the said order and reject the application for amendment of the plaint?

HOLDING The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner is restored. The application for amendment of the plaint, as prayed for, was thus allowed.

RATIONALE After closely examining the provisions made under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Court did not find any difficulty to hold that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement. It cannot be doubted that the main issue in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale was relating to the agreement for sale in which a part of the description of the suit property was wrongly given by mutual mistake and therefore, needed to be amended. Section 26 mentions that it would be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the description of the suit property, but it also clearly permits that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading, the court shall at any stage of the proceeding allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim. Under Section 26 of the Act, there is no reason why the prayer for amendment of the agreement to correct a part of the description of the suite property from Chak No. 3 SSM to Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM could not be granted. The Court felt that it is only a correction or rectification of a part of the description of the suit property, which cannot involve either the question of limitation or the change of nature of suit. The Court was unable to accept this view of the High Court. The Court felt that the suit is a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale simpliciter and only a part of the description of the suit property in the agreement as well as in the plaint was sought to be corrected or amended by the appellant by filing the application for amendment of the plaint.

It would be clear that the description of the suit property has been kept intact except that instead of Chak No. 3 SSM, Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM, has been sought to be replaced. Therefore, it is difficult to conceive that by such amendment, that is, instead of Chak No. 3 SSM, if Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to SWM is substituted, either the description of the suit property or the nature of the suit would change. This is only a change in a part of the description of the suit property, which was wrongly described by mutual mistake. 

The court viewed the high court’s judgement as unnecessary interference with the order of the trial court when the order of the trial court was passed on sound consideration of law and facts and when it cannot be said that the order of the trial court was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary.