Allahabad High Court Allows Hindu Side’s Amendment Application in Krishna Janmabhoomi Suits, Permits Inclusion of ASI & UOI as Defendants
The Allahabad High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint subject to costs.
While permitting the inclusion of ASI and Union of India as defendants, the Allahabad High Court allowed the Hindu Side’s amendment Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in the Krishna Janmabhoomi Suits.
The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint subject to costs to include the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union of India as defendants and incorporate new facts related to the notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor, State of United Province which declared the disputed property as a protected monument.
A Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held, “In my considered opinion, neither nature of suit in case of change nor a new cause of action is being introduced or any new relief is prayed for in proposed amendment. On allowing amendment application, interest of defendant can be said to be affected in such manner that can not be compensated by costs. The proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of real controversy in the matter and also to avoid multiplicity of suit. Thus, prayer for amendment in the plaint is liable to be allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000/- payable to defendant no. 1, main contesting defendant.”
Advocate Awadhesh Prasad appeared for the Plaintiff, while Advocate Afjal Ahmad represented the Defendant.
Brief Facts
In the amendment application, the Plaintiffs stated that new facts had come to their knowledge regarding the property’s status as a centrally protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (1958 Act). They argued that the presence of ASI as a party was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.
The Defendants opposed the amendment Application, contending that the Plaintiffs were attempting to introduce a new case to negate the defence that the suit is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. They further argued that Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not permit impleadment of new parties and that the Plaintiffs should have filed a separate application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for adding ASI and the Union of India as defendants. The defendants also contended that the plaintiffs were attempting to alter the nature of the suit by claiming that the Shahi Masjid Idgah was a monument under the 1958 Act.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “In present case inspite of filing separate application Order 1 Rule 17 CPC and other under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for amendment in the pleadings and impleadment of parties respectively, a composite application has been filed by the plaintiffs with prayer to leave to amend the pleadings and also for leave to add two new parties in the suit.”
It further remarked, “In this composite application only order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been mentioned and not order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC under which impleadment can be permitted but this fact cannot be lost sight that the prayer of impleadment of ASI and Union of India is based on new pleadings sought to be incorporated in the plaint in the light of said notification dated 27.12.1920 and both the prayer made in the application for amendment are interlinked.”
“Although it is desirable that separate application should be filed for amendment in the plaint and impleadment of the parties by way of addition in array of the parties of the plaint but there is no such mandate under the scheme of CPC and a composite prayer made in one application for amendment in pleadings as well as in array of the parties is not prohibited altogether,” the Bench noted.
“Inasmuch as it is difficult to comprehend that the interest of defendant will be jeopardized if composite prayer in the application for amendment is granted. The law should be taken and applied in broad prospective and hyper-technical approach in the matter will only cause delay in hearing/ disposal of the matter on merits,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “In the light of the above judicial authority, amendment application in question may be treated to be filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC as a composite application. The prayer for amendment in pleadings and impleadment of new party distinctly have already been made in the application.”
Cause Title: Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman At Katra Keshav Dev Khewat No. 255 & Ors. v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board & Ors. (ORIGINAL SUIT No. - 1 of 2023)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Advocates Awadhesh Prasad, Prabhash Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Radhey Shyam Singh, Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Reena S. Singh and Sachidanand Singh
Defendant: Advocates Afjal Ahmad, Gulrez Khan, Hare Ram, Nasiruzzaman, Pranav Ojha and Punit Kumar Gupta
