In the present case, the second amendment to the plaint is clarificatory in nature and necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. Where the requirements of the plaintiff have already been pleaded in the first amendment, the application for the second amendment should not be perceived as introducing a fresh cause of action through a new set of facts. A single Judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, in the matter of Exide Industries Limited Vs. Urmila Pasari and others (C.O. No. 1146 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the Petitioner, has filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising from a suit for eviction filed on the ground of reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
Initially, the eviction suit was filed by Smt. Surma Devi Pasari on the ground of personal requirement of the plaintiff and her Daughter-in-law. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff as well as the defendant nos. 2, both expired. Savitri Devi Pasari had executed a will in favor of opposite party no. 1 to 3, prior to her demise. After her death, the executor of the will executed a registered deed of assignment in favor of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. Since the property was now bequeathed by the Opposite party nos.1 to 3, they came up with an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC initially, for being substituted in place of defendant no. 2 and also asked for transposition to the category of plaintiffs in the suit.
Such application was dismissed and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The apex court, vide order dated 4th February 2020, allowed the substitution of Opposite part nos. 1 to 3 and also directed transposition of the said opposite parties to the suit, as plaintiffs. Also, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High court for fresh consideration and directed the court to decide the eviction suit expeditiously within 6 months from the receipt of the said order before the concerned High Court.
Later the plaintiffs took out an application for the amendment of the plaint which was allowed on consent. Where in para 6 it was specifically pleaded that initially the said premise was required by Savitri Devi Pasari as well as her family for their occupational purpose, whereas presently the plaintiffs and their respective families had no reasonable accommodation at Calcutta. Further, the plaintiffs took out a second amendment application to introduce elaborately, the nature of the requirement of the plaintiffs and their families. Defendants filed a written objection to the amendment application. The trial judge allowed the second amendment application, against which the first defendant has referred a revision.
The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that substituting the entire cause of action by a new cause of action through a second amendment, is not permissible by law. The counsel also submitted that without jurisdiction, the trial court allowed the second amendment of the plaint.
The counsel for the Opposite party nos.1 to 3, contended that there was no change made in the cause of action, through the second amendment application. The counsel further submitted that such amendment was necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the suit and hence it was rightly allowed by the trial court.
The court observed that- “Since the requirement of the present plaintiffs had already been pleaded in the first amendment, there cannot be any scope of perceiving the second amendment as the introduction of a new set of facts, comprising a fresh cause of action. Rather, as correctly observed by the Trial Court in the impugned order, the said amendment was merely clarificatory in nature and was necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties effectively”. The court also, contended that the second amendment to the plaint arises no substitution of a new cause of action, as the second amendment to the plaint, was within the ambit of pleadings, which was already on record.
Thereby the revisional application was dismissed, affirming the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)