AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2577 ::2007 AIR SCW 4583 ::2007 (5) AIR Bom R 183 ::(2007) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 525 ::(2007) 2 Orissa LR 585 ::(2007) 2 CLR 425 (SC) ::(2007) 4 CivLJ 544 ::(2007) 3 All RentCas 388 ::(2007) 2 All RentCas 912 ::(2007) 3 CivilCourtC 353 ::2007 (6) SCC 737 ::(2007) 3 RecCivR 865 ::(2007) 9 Scale 28 ::(2007) 3 CurCC 94 ::(2007) 4 All WC 3169 ::(2007) 4 ICC 353 ::(2007) 4 MPLJ 419 ::(2007) 6 Mah LJ 609 ::(2007) 4 JCR 9 (SC) ::(2007) 3 LandLR 49 ::(2007) 2 RenCR 282 ::(2007) 2 RentLR 379 ::(2007) 5 Supreme 41 ::2007 HRR 2 339

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Satya Brata Sinha, P. K. Balasubramanyan , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.6 R.17, S.96— Amendment of plaint - Suit for declaration of title - Proof of title - Amendment of plaint sought belatedly by plaintiff to make his claim more precise to enable the Court to adjudicate upon it more satisfactorily - Refusal by Trial Court and Appellate Court - Not proper. F. A. No. 515 of 1997, D/- 23-3-2005 (Bom.), Reversed. The palintiff had filed a suit for declaration of joint title. The question involved is whether the plaintiff had established his title to the suit property. The plaintiff, though somewhat belatedly, attempted to amend the plaint to make his claim more precise so as to enable the Court to adjudicate upon it more satisfactorily. The refusal by Trial Court to allow the said amendment was not proper. The appellate Court was also justified in harping upon the so-called absence of bona fides on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court. What was called for, was an independent appraisal of the various documents produced by the plaintiff in the light of the pleadings and the oral evidence available, to come to a conclusion whether the plaintiff had established his title or not. In that context, the appellate Court ought to have seen that the trial Court was in error in refusing the amendment of the plaint which would have enabled the Court to render a decision in a more satis....