Courts Cannot Examine Merits While Deciding Amendment of Pleadings; Subsequent Events Can Be Brought on Record: Supreme Court

Held: The Supreme Court held that while considering an application for amendment of pleadings under the CPC, courts cannot examine the merits or ultimate success of the case sought to be introduced. It further held that subsequent events having a material bearing on the rights of parties can be brought on record through amendment, and such amendments should ordinarily be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not introduce a completely inconsistent or barred claim.

Summary: The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed by a landlord on grounds including bona fide requirement. After dismissal of the suit and during pendency of appeal, the landlord died, and his legal heirs sought amendment of the plaint to plead their own bona fide requirement based on subsequent developments. The Appellate Bench allowed the amendment, but the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the order on the ground that the amendment introduced a new and inconsistent case and that the landlord’s need had extinguished upon his death. Before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether courts could assess merits at the stage of amendment and whether legal heirs could plead subsequent need. The Court held that the High Court erred in reassessing merits and evidence, which is impermissible in supervisory jurisdiction. It reiterated that amendment is not to be refused merely because the case may ultimately fail, and that courts must consider whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy. The Court also emphasized that subsequent events can be considered to mould relief, especially where the original pleadings already included need of family members, and allowing amendment would prevent multiplicity of litigation.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the Appellate Bench’s order permitting amendment of the plaint, and directed continuation of proceedings with liberty to both parties to amend pleadings and lead evidence, while clarifying that merits of the eviction claim would be decided independently.