JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules 1908 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to permit the Applicants/Plaintiffs to amend the Plaint in C.S.Nos.153 & 154of 2022.) Common Judgment 1. These applications have been filed seeking to permit the Applicants/Plaintiffs to amend the Plaint in C.S.Nos.153 & 154 of 2022. 2. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in A.No.3632 of 2022 and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that subsequent to the filing of the C.S.Nos.153 & 154 of 2022, the respondents/defendants convened the meeting for the election to the Governing Board of the 1st respondent/defendant Society for the year 2022- 25. Whereas, the present suit has been filed challenging the impugned notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 calling for the nomination for contesting the election for the term 2021-24 of the Governing Body of the 1st respondent/defendant society. According to the applicants/plaintiffs only seven nominations were received and as per the Clause 44, these persons were elected. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, one more notice was also issued on 01.08.2022 calling for the nomination for the seven vacancies that were to arise in the Governing Board for the period 2022-25. The applicants/plaintiffs immediately moved applications before this Court, wherein, this Court granted interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from implementing the notice dated 01.08.2022. 3. Now the present Applications have been moved for amendment of the plaint since pending the suit, another notice dated 01.08.2022 was issued by the 2nd respondent/defendant. Though issuance of another notice dated 01.08.2022 is entirely a new cause of action, however, as already suits were filed challenging the similar notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, amendment of the plaints was sought in the present applications to include the prayer, 'to declare the notice dated 01.08.2022 also as null and void' and other consequential reliefs. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit that already similar notices were challenged by the applicants/plaintiffs and whatever the ultimate outcome of the suit in respect of similar notices, viz., 15.07.20222 and 25.07.2022 would be the same outcome in respect of the fresh notice dated 01.08.2022 and hence, no separate suit is required and further, it could avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 4. 4. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that under Order VI Rule 17CPC, wherein before the commencement of trial, the plaintiff can be permitted to make any amendment in the pleadings and absolutely there is no bar to bring new cause of action and seek a fresh prayer based on the new cause of action since the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the dispute between the parties since already declaration in respect of notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 was sought for and since the fresh notice was issued during pendency of the suits on 01.08.2022, without filing another suit, the applicants have sought for amendment of the plaint, seeking similar relief of declaration in respect of the notice issued on 01.08.2022. The learned Sennior counsel would submit that allowing the present amendment, absolutely, the character and nature of the suits is not going to be altered and that the present cause of action is not going to substitute any of the cause of actions mentioned in the plaints. Therefore, they would submit that there is absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants in the event of allowing the present applications. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Hallel Ben, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/defendant and Mr.Thomas T.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defendant in both the applications, while strongly opposing the present applications for allowing the proposed amendment of the plaints, would submit that by way of introducing new amendment, the applicants are attempting to introduce new pleadings based on the new cause of action and seeking the consequential prayer, which cannot be permitted and it would cause great prejudice to the respondents/defendants. The learned counsel would submit that the newly elected members for the year 2021-22 have not been impleaded, but they are the necessary parties and their interest is going to be affected. Hence, without impleading them, present amendment cannot be allowed. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that 2nd and 4th applicants/plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge 2021-22 elections since already they have got selected and they are the two among seven selected members for the year 2021-24. Hence, without impleading them, present amendment cannot be allowed. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that 2nd and 4th applicants/plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge 2021-22 elections since already they have got selected and they are the two among seven selected members for the year 2021-24. Further, the learned counsel pointed that previously, when the challenge was made in respect of two notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022, both suits were valued Rs.1 Crore & 3 thousand and 1 Crore & 2 thousand respectively and accordingly, Court fees were paid. While so, by virtue of amendment of new pleadings and new cause of action, the applicants/plaintiffs sought for another relief of declaration in respect of notice dated 01.08.2022 and hence, the suits are not valued properly and hence, the amendment sought for in the applications cannot be permitted. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to Section 6 (3) and submitted that the suit is valued for the reliefs sought for in the plaint and the amended prayer, seeking challenge in respect of the fresh notice dated 01.08.2022, they also referred Section 11 and submitted that if the Court allows the present amendment, it will be unnoticed by the Registry from tax officer's adjudication. Hence, he would submit that these applications are liable to be dismissed. 7. Yet another ground raised by the respondents with regard to the non-joinder of parties since the seven members who got elected by virtue of the notice dated 25.07.2022 to the Governing Board for the year 2021-24 were not impleaded and allowing these applications would affect their interest and they would be prejudiced. Hence, these applications are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the proper parties. 8. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel have referred the following judgments: 1. Kumaraswami Gounder and Others Vs. D.R.Nanjappa Gounder and Others, reported in MANU/TN/0224/1978. 2. M.S.Karuppusami Vs. Saravana Devei and Others, reported in MANU/TN/0310/2002. 3. Venkitasamy and Others Vs. Subbathal and Others, reported in MANU/TN/9572/2006. 4. Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and Others Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 713 : (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 669 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 610. 5. A.K.A. CT. V. CT. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A. CT. V. CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar , reported in MANU/TN/0213/1980. 6. Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram, reported in MANU/SC/0018/1978. 7. A.K.A.Ct. V.C.T.Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 713 : (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 669 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 610. 5. A.K.A. CT. V. CT. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A. CT. V. CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar , reported in MANU/TN/0213/1980. 6. Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram, reported in MANU/SC/0018/1978. 7. A.K.A.Ct. V.C.T.Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A.Ct.V.C.T. Venkatachalam Chettiar, reported in MANU/TN/0475/1978. 9. In reply, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in A.No.3632 of 2022 would submit that the nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties and the issue of Court fees cannot be adjudicated at the stage of hearing the amendment petition. The suits were valued towards the declaratory reliefs and as such, question of under valuing the suit does not arise and further, the amended relief sought for, is concerned only in respect of notice dated 01.08.2022 which is very similar to that of notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 which were already challenged in the suits. 10. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in A.No.3633 of 2022 would refer to Order VII Rule 11 (c) and submit that in the event there is improperly stamped towards payment of stamp duty and if it is brought to the Court knowledge, the Court still can grant the time limit for the payment of the additional Court fee. Therefore, at the stage of determining the issue of amendment, the payment of Court fee cannot be determined in the event if the amendment is allowed it is for the tax officer of this Court to adjudicate the Court fee and even if it does not come under the scrutiny of the tax officer, it is for the respondents/defendants can raise as an issue before the Court and the Court still can fix the time limit for the payment of the stamp duty as envisaged under Order VII Rule 11 (c) CPC. 11. The learned Senior counsel would also refer to Order I Rule 9 and submitted that no suit shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or nonhttps:// joinder of the parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. 11. The learned Senior counsel would also refer to Order I Rule 9 and submitted that no suit shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or nonhttps:// joinder of the parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Therefore, this is not the stage where the proposed amendment sought for can be rejected based on the averments of mis-joinder or nonjoinder of the parties made by the respondents/defendants. 12. Further Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel also referred to Order II Rule 3 and submitted that any number of cause of actions against the same defendant can be united and the same can be entertained in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings on their behalf and in this regard, he referred to three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., 1. Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 87. 2. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K.Modi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 385. 3. Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S.Rayappan and Others, reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 472. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Senior Counsel Mr.Vijay Narayan for the applicants/plaintiffs in A.No.3632 of 2022 and Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in A.No.3633 of 2022 and Mr.Hallel Ben and Mr.Thomas T.Jacob, learned counsels appearing for the first and second respondent in both applications. 14. The present applications were filed, seeking for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint vis-a-vis the prayer based on the new cause of action that arose due to the issuance of notice dated 01.08.2022 calling for nominations by the 2nd respondent/defendant for the Governing Board in the suits C.S.Nos.153 and 154 of 2022, wherein, already such similar notices, viz., 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 calling for nominations by the 2nd respondent/defendant for the Governing Board were challenged. It is pertinent to note that the present fresh notice dated 01.08.2022 which was issued during the pendency of the suits, is akin to the notices which were already issued by the 2nd respondent/defendant and though the applicants/plaintiffs sought for amendment based on new cause of action that arose on 01.08.2022, but it is not in dispute that it is a similar notice and whatever the outcome would be arrived by the trial Court after full fledged trial in respect of earlier notices, viz., 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022, the same would be applicable in respect of the present fresh notice dated 01.08.2022 as the parties and issues are one and the same and hence, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the applicants/plaintiffs moved the present applications, seeking for modification of the plaint averments vis-a-vis prayer, which, in the opinion of this Court, can be permitted and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants since the respondents/defendants can agitate the same by way of additional written statement. In fact, the present amendment as sought for by the applicants/plaintiffs does not change the nature of the suit. It is settled law that if necessary factual basis for amendment is already contained in the plaint, the relief sought on the said basis would not change the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment is only with regard to the subsequent event that had taken place during the pendency of the suits since the 2nd respondent has again issued notice on 01.08.2022 which is similar to that of notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022. 15. The main contention raised by the respondents/defendants opposing the proposed amendment is that when admittedly, it is a new cause of action that arose on issuance of the notice dated 01.08.2022, the applicants/plaintiffs cannot merge the same into the cause of action already mentioned in the plaints and seek amendment by adding pleadings and new cause of action and also by moulding the prayer in the existing suits and if at all the applicants/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the issuance of subsequent notice dated 01.08.2022, they can very well file a separate suit by impleading necessary parties and and seek the relief instead of coming forward with the present applications. This contention, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained, for the simple reason that the proposed amendment would not anyway change or alter the nature of the suit and since the parties and the issues regarding the issuance of the subsequent notice dated 01.08.2022 are one and the same and already, the applicants/plaintiffs have moved the suits challenging the similar notices, viz., 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 and whatever the findings and decisions that would be arrived by the trial Court after full fledged trial in respect of notices, dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 would be the same even in respect of the notice dated 01.08.2022 as this notice is very similar, but on different cause of action. Only the cause of action is different, but rest of the pleadings and prayers that were sought to be amended in the plaint, are very same to that of the pleadings and prayers as sought for in regard to the notices dated 15.07.2022 and 25.07.2022. Therefore, this Court does find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it would be appropriate to seek amendment of the plaint along with new prayer based on new cause of action in respect of notice dated 01.08.2022. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants/plaintiffs are entitled to agitate the subsequent notice issued by the 2nd respondent/defendant during the pendency of suits by way of amendment of the plaints and prayer by adding new cause of action in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 16. With regard to the plea of non-joinder of the necessary parties is concerned, in the present case, only the notices were under challenge and even assuming that the suits are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the same can be decided at the time of trial of the suit where, the respondents/defendants can rise the same as preliminary issue by way of additional written statement, but the same cannot be decided at this stage where this Court is only ventured upon whether the proposed amendment can be allowed. In fact, non-joinder of parties refers to a situation in which those parties whose presence is essential and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed by the Court have not been impleaded. In fact, non-joinder of parties refers to a situation in which those parties whose presence is essential and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed by the Court have not been impleaded. In such case, it is incumbent upon the applicants/plaintiffs to prove that even in the absence of the parties which according to the respondents/defendants are necessary, the matter can be decided and it is for the trial Court to look into the matter. 17. The object of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is that the Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause of injustice or prejudice to the other side. Absolutely, as discussed above, there would be no injustice or prejudice going to be caused to the respondents/defendants in the event the proposed amendment as sought for in the present applications is allowed. Further, by issuance of notice on 01.08.2022 by the 2nd respondent/defendant during the pendency of the suit and as such, since new cause of action arose, the proposed amendment has to necessarily be granted because the basic structure of the suit is not going be altered or changed and there is merely a change in the nature of th relief claimed. If it was permissible for the applicants/plaintiffs to file an independent suit, it is incomprehensible why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit, cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the present pending suits. 18. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants that suits are not valued properly and no Court fee which is liable to be paid on inclusion of new prayer in the present suits is concerned, after allowing the amendment of the prayer, this matter will come to the knowledge of the Registry and the tax officer will consider and fix the Court fee and direct the applicants/plaintiffs to pay the same. Even the respondents/defendants can take a stand in the written statement and brought to the knowledge of the Court and the Court still have power to direct applicants to pay the Court fee within the time stipulated, which is permissible under Order VII Rule 11 (c) of CPC. 19. Even the respondents/defendants can take a stand in the written statement and brought to the knowledge of the Court and the Court still have power to direct applicants to pay the Court fee within the time stipulated, which is permissible under Order VII Rule 11 (c) of CPC. 19. By virtue of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Court can allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Therefore, the object of Order VI Rule 17 is to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment can be exercised at any stage of the pleadings in the interest of justice. It is true that the amendment cannot me made as a matter of right under all circumstances, but it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypothetical approach. The liberal approach with general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the cost. The technicalities of law should not be permitted to amber in the Court and the administration of justice between the parties. The amendments are allowed in the pleadings only to avoid the multiplicity of legal proceedings. 20. As long as the basic structure of the suit has not been changed and there is no bar for allowing the amendment and the primary duty of the Court is to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties in the event the amendment is allowed. The case is like this the Court should take notice in the subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard the interests of the parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. 21. In the light of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to allow the present applications. Accordingly, the present Applications are allowed as prayed for. 21. In the light of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to allow the present applications. Accordingly, the present Applications are allowed as prayed for. The applicants/plaintiffs are directed to carry out the necessary amendments within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, within a period of one week the plaintiffs are directed to serve the amended copies of the plaint to the respondents/defendants. No costs.