Sri K.N. Murthy vs. Sri Surender Bantia Alias Premraj Surender Bantia

Facts

The revision petitioners filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the respondents. The respondents filed a written statement-cum-counter-claim seeking recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest. The suit was decreed, and the counter-claim was dismissed. The respondents appealed, and this Court remanded the matter to the trial court for adjudication of the counter-claim. In the appellate proceedings, directions were issued for payment of arrears of rent, including GST, and for the respondents to vacate the premises by December 31, 2022. Subsequently, the respondents filed a contempt case alleging non-payment of rents. During these proceedings, it was revealed that the respondents had paid excess rents and were also entitled to a security deposit. The respondents then sought to amend their written statement-cum-counter-claim to include these amounts as an additional prayer.

Held

The Court held that the revision petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed. The Court found no fault with the trial court's order allowing the amendment. It reasoned that the need for the amendment arose only after the disposal of the Civil Court Commercial Appeal (CCCA) No. 44 of 2022, during the payment of arrears of rent, where excess amounts were paid, and the security deposit was not refunded. These developments occurred subsequent to the disposal of the CCCA, meaning there was no occasion for the respondents to seek amendment prior to the commencement of the trial. The Court also noted that the contention of the revision petitioners that the excess amounts paid would give rise to a new cause of action, necessitating a fresh suit, would lead to an abuse of the court process and multiplicity of litigation. Crucially, the Court referred to its own order dated July 11, 2023, in Contempt Case (CC) No. 1453 of 2022, which clearly directed that any excess amount paid should be adjusted in the pending counter-claim and that the refund of money would be subject matter of the counter-claim. Since this order was not challenged, it had become final. Therefore, the amendment sought by the respondents was in compliance with this court order. The Court confirmed the order of the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the written statement-cum-counter-claim, particularly when the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action subsequent to the decree and appeals? 2. Whether the proposed amendments are permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) given that they were sought after the commencement of the trial and the disposal of appeals, and whether they change the nature of the counter-claim? Petitioner's arguments: The revision petitioners argued that the amendment is untenable as it changes the nature of the counter-claim and creates a new cause of action, which is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. They contended that amendments can only be made prior to the commencement of trial, unless due diligence is shown as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17. They relied on the case of Basavaraj v. Indirar. They also argued that the proposed amendment would enlarge the scope of the remand. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that there is no infirmity in the trial court's order as amendments can be permitted at any stage if necessitated by subsequent events to avoid further litigation and prevent irreparable loss. They contended that the need for amendment arose after the disposal of the appeals, and the proposed amendments were to incorporate events that occurred subsequently.