The petitioner, Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, appeared before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 5 November 2022, passed by the learned Trial Judge, who had rejected an application to amend the plaint in a specific performance suit. The original suit was filed by the petitioner in 2019, seeking the performance of an agreement dated 29 March 2008 for the sale of 8.5 R. of land. The petitioner claimed that the defendant had agreed to sell the property, and possession was handed over to him upon payment of nearly 90% of the agreed sale consideration, amounting to ?3,10,000.

However, despite the injunction order passed in favour of the petitioner on 19 May 2020, the defendant had proceeded to create third-party rights in the property by gifting it to his son in June 2019 and subsequently selling it to another third party, ‘Julekha Kazi,’ in 2020. This act of transferring the property while the suit was pending was seen as an attempt to obstruct the petitioner’s rightful claim and possession.

In response to these developments, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to include the defendant’s son and Julekha Kazi as parties in the suit. The amendment was also aimed at introducing subsequent events, such as the gift and sale of the property to these third parties, and sought a mandatory injunction for removing the encroachments.

However, the trial court rejected the application on the grounds that the amendment would complicate the case. The court ruled that allowing the amendment would increase the complexity of the proceedings, which led the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court, upon reviewing the facts of the case, found merit in the petitioner’s arguments and set aside the impugned order. The Court emphasized that the amendment was crucial for bringing all relevant facts to light, particularly those that occurred after the initiation of the suit. The Court held that the amendment would not only aid in determining the real and complete issues between the parties but would also reduce the possibility of multiple proceedings, which could unnecessarily complicate the matter further.

The Court observed that the petitioner was not introducing a fresh cause of action but merely seeking to include subsequent developments that had a direct bearing on the ongoing suit. By allowing the amendment, the Court sought to prevent the defendant from raising frivolous defenses and to ensure that all parties involved were brought before the Court to address the disputes comprehensively.

In support of its decision, the Court relied on principles laid down in prior judgments. In Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 559, the Supreme Court had held that amendments should be allowed to introduce causes of action that arose during the pendency of the suit, especially to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court also referred to the recent case of Dinesh Goyal v. Pappu (2024 Live Law (SC) 739), where the Supreme Court emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided when considering amendments. The Court noted that the real test for allowing an amendment is its necessity for determining the real issues between the parties and preventing multiplicity.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, recognizing the importance of allowing amendments to reflect subsequent events in a suit. The decision ensures that the parties involved are properly represented, and that the case is resolved efficiently, minimizing the risk of multiple proceedings. The trial court has now been directed to allow the amendment and fix a time frame within which the changes should be incorporated into the plaint.

The decision reinforces the legal principle that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed, especially when they serve the purpose of clarifying issues and reducing the possibility of conflicting judgments in multiple forums. This order, which does not impose any costs on the petitioner, serves as a reminder that procedural delays should not obstruct the pursuit of justice, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the real issues in dispute are fully presented to the Court.