Introduction:

A Bombay High Court judgment highlights the importance of timely and accurate pleadings in legal disputes. The court imposed costs on a slum occupant who attempted to amend her suit against developers seven years after filing it, introducing claims inconsistent with her initial pleadings.

Arguments of Both the sides:

Shardadevi Vikramjeet Yadav (original plaintiff) initially filed a suit in 2008 against Ravi Ashish Builders and another builder, seeking a declaration that a 1995 agreement for permanent alternate accommodation was binding on Ravi Ashish Developers. She also sought to prevent them from dispossessing her from her transit accommodation. In 2015, Yadav sought to amend her suit, claiming she had purchased an additional room in 1995 and received another permanent accommodation agreement for it in 2000. This essentially doubled her claim for permanent accommodation. Ravi Ashish Builders challenged the amendments, arguing they significantly deviated from the original pleadings and raised entirely new claims. They emphasized a 2010 court order acknowledging Yadav had received permanent alternate accommodation for her original premises and subsequently sold it. The amendments, they argued, contradicted this established fact and would prejudice their defense.

Court’s Judgment:

The court agreed with the developers, finding the amendments sought to alter fundamental facts already settled by the 2010 order. The court considered the significant delay in introducing these new claims, questioning why they couldn’t have been presented earlier.

While acknowledging Yadav’s status as a slum occupant, the court found the amendments could potentially disrupt the slum rehabilitation project, causing significant costs to the developers. Therefore, the court set aside the amendments and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on Yadav, payable to the High Court Legal Aid Fund.