2023 (1) TMI 444 - HC - Indian Laws
Recovery of possession and the mesne profit/damages for wrongful and illegal occupation of the appellant - lease agreement for enjoyment and occupation of the demise premises for a specified time which expired by efflux of time in the year 2010 - HELD THAT:- The appellant did not challenge the order permitting the amendment to be carried out in the plaint. However, they chose to remain absent and did not contest the suit. Astonishingly, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the moment Supreme Court has used the expression ‘suit’ it must be construed as an un-amended suit and not the amended suit. Such misunderstanding of the tenet of the order of the Supreme Court is laudable as it is beyond any doubt that the expression ‘suit’ includes the suit with the amendment, if carried out subsequently, as the amendment, if allowed, relates back to the date of the institution of the suit unless the Court expressly indicated not to be so. The doctrine of relation back is the uniform rule in the case of amendment unless interdicted by an order of the Court.
We have no hesitation in our mind that the word ‘suit’ contained in the order of the Supreme Court cannot be given a restrictive meaning as it would go against the spirit of the law relating to the amendment of the pleading. It is also beyond cavil of doubt that the judgment delivered by the Court should not be construed as a statute nor the interpretive process applicable to the statutory interpretation should be applicable thereto - We do not find that such misconception in the mind of the learned advocate for the appellant stands as an obstacle in upholding that the suit would mean the suit as it stands on the date of the passing of the final decree and if any amendment having been carried out, it would be regarded as a pleading in the suit and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention.
By virtue of an amendment, the relief in this regard was incorporated and the trial Court finds that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove such claim and, in fact, granted relief in their favour which cannot be said to be per se illegal nor beyond the scope of the suit - Appeal dismissed.