Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 563 (ALL)

Kashinath @ Kallu v. Rajeev Kumar Mishra

2024-02-22

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : ''(i) Set-aside the order dated 14.9.20222 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur in Original Suit No. 26 of 2018 (Rajeev Kumar and others v. Kashinath @ Kallu and others) (Annexure 01 to his petition) and order dated 1.12.2023 passed by the Learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Civil Revision No. 28 of 2023, Computerized No. UPSH010038782023, (Kashinath @ Kallu and others v. Rajeev Kumar and others) (Annexure 02 to this petition) and may dismiss the amendment application, Paper No. 14Ka, of the plaintiffs/respondents (Annexure 5 to this petition).'' 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 26 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur against the defendants-petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from obstructing the right of way of the petitioners by putting a lock on the door lying between the two houses. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that the plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of the property in dispute. The defendants-petitioners who are the sons of the plaintiffs' uncle (tau) were permitted by the plaintiffs-respondents to reside in the house of plaintiffs-respondents. For last some time, the defendants-petitioners became dishonest and they locked the main gate for which they were reprimanded by the plaintiffs-respondents not to repeat the same but later on when the defendants-petitioners tried to lock the doors again, the suit was filed. It is also stated in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint that the plaintiffs-respondents have a right to cancel the license and get the possession of the house in dispute. This suit was filed on 29.4.2018. On 8.6.2020, an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint being application Paper No. 14ka. This suit was filed on 29.4.2018. On 8.6.2020, an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint being application Paper No. 14ka. By the aforesaid application, it was stated by the plaintiffs-respondents that during the pendency of the suit on 22.3.2020 the defendants-petitioners have laid foundation for constructing a wall obstructing the right of way of the plaintiffs-respondents, therefore, the license granted by the plaintiffs-respondents to the defendants-petitioner was revoked and they were directed to vacate the house which the defendants-petitioners refused and therefore, amendment was sought in the pleadings as well as in the relief clause adding a prayer for possession and eviction of the defendants-petitioners. Necessary amendments in the plaint were also sought by the plaintiffs-respondents. 4. The defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit and filed written statement on 18.5.2022 denying the plaint averments. On 18.5.2022, the defendants-petitioners also filed objection to the amendment application Paper No. 14 ga. The trial Court by its order dated 14.9.2022, allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Against the order dated 14.9.2022, passed by the trial Court, the defendants-respondents filed Civil Revision No. 28 of 2023. The aforesaid revision was dismissed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur by judgment and order dated 1.12.2023, hence, the present petition. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment as sought cannot be allowed as the nature of the suit gets changed. The suit was initially filed for injunction and now by amendment the plaintiffs-respondents wants to convert the suit into suit for possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and others, AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others, AIR 2020 SC 3322. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph No. 70 of the judgment in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) which is quoted as under: ''70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word ''shall'', in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is mala fide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the Court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the Court is required to be liberal in its approach. The Court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the Court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and others, MANU/DE/2236/2022).'' 6. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others, AIR 2020 SC 3322 and relied upon paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment which is quoted as under: ''8. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and others, MANU/DE/2236/2022).'' 6. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others, AIR 2020 SC 3322 and relied upon paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment which is quoted as under: ''8. The High Court while allowing the amendment application in exercise of powers under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not properly appreciated the fact and/or considered the fact that as such, by granting such an amendment and permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaints incorporating the prayer Clause to declare the respective charges/mortgages void ab-initio, the nature of the suits will be changed. As per the settled proposition of law, if, by permitting Plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer Clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action.'' 7. Before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be useful to consider the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. which are as under: ''17. Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.'' 8. In case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin and others, (1981) 3 SCC 652 , in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has laid the test for allowing an amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: ''6. The liberal principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments have been laid down in numerous decisions of this Court. Multiplicity of proceedings being avoided is one criterion. The liberal principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments have been laid down in numerous decisions of this Court. Multiplicity of proceedings being avoided is one criterion. Amendments which do not totally alter the character of the action are readily granted while care is taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character are not inflicted on the opposite party under pretense of amendment of pleadings. The Court must be guided by the rule of justice expressed by the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Po Hnaung, AIR 1922 PC 249 (250-51); (see AIR Commentaries on C.P.C., 1908, 9th Edn., Vol. 2, pp. 1283-84). All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless, no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit.'' 9. In case of A.K. Gupta and sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1969 SC 96, the Supreme Court has held as under: ''7. It is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment, a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new case or cause of action is barred : Welch v. Neale, 19 QBD 394. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation : see Charan Das v. Amir Khan L.R., 47 IndAp 225 and L J. Leach and Company Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., MANU/SC/0009/1957: [1957] 1 SCR 438 8. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil. 9. The expression cause of action in the present context does not mean every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed as was said in Cooke v. Gill in a, different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corporation Ltd. and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words ''new case'' have been understood to mean ''new set of ideas'' : Dornan v. J. W. Ellis & Co. Ltd.. This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new seat of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time.'' 10. In case of Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and others, (1974) 1 SCC 675 , the Supreme Court has held as under: ''He also prays for the renumbering of present paragraph 12 as paragraph 13 of the written statement. Sri Tarkunde has submitted that if the assertions made in the new paragraph 12 are accepted by the Court, the respondent's suit will have to be dismissed. It is also, said that the new situation arising on the death of Smt. Rajrani during pendency of the appeal can be considered by the Court in order to, mould the decree in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. In our view, Mr. It is also, said that the new situation arising on the death of Smt. Rajrani during pendency of the appeal can be considered by the Court in order to, mould the decree in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. In our view, Mr. Tarkunde, is right in this submission. Ordinarily, a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution. But it is open to a Court (including a Court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate, or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or (3) to do complete justice between the parties (See Rai Charan Mandal and another v. Biswanath Mandal and others).'' 11. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and another, (2000) 1 SCC 712 , the Supreme Court has held in paragraph No. 3 as under: ''3. The-purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.'' 12. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.'' 12. In case of Suraj Kumar Bhasin (Supra), the Supreme Court while considering the amendment in the plaint, sought by the plaintiff in a suit for partition for a share in the cinema house, by seeking to add a relief of rendition of accounts of alleged partnership between the parties, the Supreme Court has held as under: ''……..To start with, the plaintiff sought relief by way of partition of his share in the super-structure of the theatre. The claim was contested by the appellant, issues were struck, two years passed, and then the respondent (plaintiff) woke up to the need for an amendment of the plaint in the shape of additional reliefs and supportive averments. The new reliefs proceeded on the footing that there was partnership of the theatre business in which the plaintiff had a share and the demand now made was to render an account of the cinema business (M/s. Prakash Talkies) from March 1, 1973. It must be mentioned that even in the original plaint there was reference to a partnership arrangement and the plaintiff's share therein although relief on that footing was reserved by a separate action. Apparently realising that prolixity of litigation could be avoided and dissolution of partnership could finally separate the parties and quantify their respective share the amendment was sought. 2. The defendant-appellant furiously opposed the amendment on the ground that the entire character of the litigation was sought to be changed, that what was a partition suit was now re-incarnating as a partnership dissolution action, that the scope of the suit would be materially altered and that pleas available to resist the claim of the plaintiff would be lost to the prejudice of the defendant if the amendment were allowed. Such metamorphosis under guise of amendment was, according to the appellant, impermissible. 3. The trial Court, in exercise of its discretion, allowed the amendment and the High Court in revision, refused to interfere. Such metamorphosis under guise of amendment was, according to the appellant, impermissible. 3. The trial Court, in exercise of its discretion, allowed the amendment and the High Court in revision, refused to interfere. In the view of the Courts below there was not such a total transformation of the nature of the litigation as to deny the prayer for amendment. On the other hand, the facts were substantially the same; the case of partnership was already present in embryonic form in the original plaint and multiplicity of suits would be avoided by grant of the amendment. ''Thus, there is no basis whatsoever for interference and this revision application is hence liable to be dismissed'', concluded the High Court. 7. It follows that nothing so shocking as has been urged by the appellant's Counsel has taken place here. The plea based on partnership is neither a virgin case nor a violent departure from the original. After all, the appellant-defendant has a full opportunity to meet the case presented by the amendment. Maybe, a variety of circumstances some of which were mentioned before us might, if successfully established, disprove the veracity of the plaintiff's case, They are matters bearing on the merits of the case, not on the tenability of the amendment.'' (paras 1, 2, 3 and 7) 13. In the facts of the present case, the basis of the claim in the original plaint was a license given by the plaintiffs-respondents to the defendants-petitioners. That license formed the foundation of the rights claimed. By the amendment, the plaintiffs has sought the relief of possession of the house in question by adding supportive averments after terminating the license of the petitioners. From the plaint as originally filed and plaint after the amendment, it is clear that the basis of the suit in both the situations was the license which was granted by the plaintiffs-respondents to the defendants-petitioners (as claimed by the plaintiffs) and denial of the same by the defendants-petitioners. Even in the original plaint, there is reference of license and right of the plaintiffs to revoke the license and get the possession back. Paragraph No. 22 of the plaint is quoted as under: 14. Even in the original plaint, there is reference of license and right of the plaintiffs to revoke the license and get the possession back. Paragraph No. 22 of the plaint is quoted as under: 14. The questions of facts and law that were raised in the original suit are all there, now, if the plaintiffs succeeds in proving the fact that the defendants-petitioners were licensee and the license has been terminated by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs will be entitled to a different relief (the relief as claimed by amendment). It may also be said that a new cause of action has been added. But it is possible to add a fresh cause of action and to alter the relief without changing the character of the suit. The change in this case, if any, is surely of not such a fundamental or even substantial character that it may be said that it violates the recognize rule according to which amendment may not as a general rule be allowed, which converts a suit of one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character. There is again absolutely no basis for saying that any new character that the suit may have assumed, if at all, is inconsistent with the character of the suit as laid in the first instance. What an amendment must not alter, is the fundamental character of the suit which expression refers to the foundation on which the suit is based and not the prayer in the plaint. Judged by this test, the amendment does not introduce any change in the fundamental character of the suit. 15. The most important principle governing amendment of plaint, is that amendment should be allowed, if by doing so, multiplicity of the suits can be avoided. In the present case, that condition is entirely fulfilled. It cannot be said that by allowing the amendment, the Courts below, have allowed the nature of the suit to be changed or have allowed one cause of action to be substituted for another. The utmost that can be said against the orders passed by the Courts below allowing the amendment is that it has the effect of allowing the plaintiffs to add certain more causes of action to the original one. The cause of action, sought to be added, is allied to the one on the allegations made in the plaint itself. 16. The utmost that can be said against the orders passed by the Courts below allowing the amendment is that it has the effect of allowing the plaintiffs to add certain more causes of action to the original one. The cause of action, sought to be added, is allied to the one on the allegations made in the plaint itself. 16. When therefore, events occur after the institutions of suit, the Court has power to allow the amendment of the plaint in the proper cases, even though, the amendment asked for may involve addition of fresh causes of action, particularly, when the fundamental character of the suit is not altered. Judged by this test, the amendment allowed was permissible. An event has occurred after the institution of the suit. It adds to the right of the plaintiffs. They are in a position to claim fresh reliefs which were not open to them when they instituted the suit. The new cause of action, which the event happening after the institution of suit may be said to have given rise to, leaves the essential character of the suit unaltered, and therefore, the amendment is not open to the objection on this score. 17. In case of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (Supra), the Supreme Court was considering the question whether it was permissible to convert through amendment, a suit merely for permanent prohibitory injunction, into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Supreme Court held in paragraph No. 6 and 7 as under: ''6. It is true that the plaintiff on the averments made in the application for amendment proposes to introduce a cause of action which has arisen to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. According to the defendant the averments made in the application for amendment are factually incorrect and the defendant was not in possession of the property since before the institution of the suit itself. 7. In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. 7. In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the Trial Court it was one to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the Trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiffs revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings.'' 18. In case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court has laid down the general principle to be followed while considering the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. In case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), a suit was instituted for specific performance of an agreement dated 8.6.1979. In the alternative, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages. The plaintiff moved the Chamber's summons No. 854 of 2017, inter alia seeking enhancement of amount, towards damages on the grounds, more particularly, set out in the affidavit, filed in support of the said Chamber's summons. The learned single judge of the Bombay High Court, allowed the Chamber's summons referred above, vide order dated 11.9.2018, keeping the issue for limitation open and also permitting the defendant to file additional written statement. The appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed by order dated 13.12.2018. The Supreme Court in paragraph No. 71 has held as under: ''71. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that we should not disturb the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the amendment application filed at the instance of the plaintiffs.'' 19. The Supreme Court in paragraph No. 71 has held as under: ''71. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that we should not disturb the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the amendment application filed at the instance of the plaintiffs.'' 19. In case of Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also not applicable as the judgment is based on facts of that and as such is not applicable in the present case. 20. In case of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and others, AIR 2002 SC 3369 , the Supreme Court held that pre trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those who are sought to be made after the commencement of trial or after conclusion thereof. In paragraph No. 9 of the Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: ''9. Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as are directed towards putting-form and seeking determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In former case generally it can be assumed that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment.'' 21. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment.'' 21. In the present case, the amendment in the plaint has been sought by the plaintiff at a very early stage, even before written statement was filed by the defendants. Even otherwise, there is no impediment, in case, the plaintiffs file a suit for eviction after terminating the license of the defendants-petitioners. Instead of filing a separate suit, the plaintiffs have sought, amendment in the plaint by adding supportive paragraphs and the relief of possession after terminating the license of the defendants-petitioners. The Courts below have rightly allowed the amendment application filed by the petitioner as the second suit on the ground which has been sought to be incorporate by the plaintiffs in the suit, does not bar the fresh suit and as there is one suit is pending between the parties, it is expedient that all the dispute should be considered and decided in one suit and this will avoid the filing of multiple suits. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the Courts below. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.