Facts: Ashok Gupta, the applicant, filed an interim application in a suit originally instituted by Om Prakash Gupta and Savitri Devi (Original Plaintiffs) seeking amendments to the plaint. The original suit concerned the estate of Kundanlal Gupta. Kundanlal Gupta was also a partner in Kundan Talkies, a partnership firm. A separate suit ("Bahadurgarh Suit") was filed in Haryana concerning the custody of the partnership deed. The applicant sought to introduce facts and documents from the Bahadurgarh Suit into the present suit, including judgments and decrees. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing delay, prejudice, and that the amendments were unnecessary and contained evidence, not pleadings.
Procedural Posture: The case is before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, on an Interim Application (L) No.11484 of 2025 in Suit No.2332 of 1985. The applicant seeks amendments to the plaint, which is contested by the respondents.
Issue: Should the applicant be allowed to amend the plaint to include facts and documents from a related suit in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, including judgments and decrees, to raise pleas of res judicata and estoppel, to seek compensation and disclosure of assets, and to correct an error in the prayer clause?
Holding: The Court allowed the interim application in terms of prayer (a) (except in respect of Serial No.8 to the Schedule to the Interim Application), subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- by the Applicant to the Defendants. The Court permitted the applicant to amend the plaint as proposed in the schedule, except for the amendment sought at Serial No.8 of the Schedule to the Interim Application.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the amendments were necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, to determine the real questions in controversy, and to support the pleas of res judicata and estoppel. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Omprakash Gupta v Ranbir B. Goyal, emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments sought before the commencement of trial, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding delay, the evidentiary nature of the amendments, and the lack of res judicata, finding that these were arguments on the merits of the proposed amendments and not grounds for rejecting them outright. The Court also found that the amendment to the prayer clause was necessary to rectify an error and would aid in the proper adjudication of the controversy.