Supreme Court establishes principles on Amendment of Plaint under Order VI Rule 17, the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

Patna High Court disposed of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which had challenged an order passed by the Munsif. It upheld the order allowing an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amending the plaint although the amendment appeared to introduce a time-barred claim.

Earlier, in Dinesh Goyal @Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors (2024), the decision of the Supreme Court's division bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol had established the principles on amendment of Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a judgement dated September 24, 2024. The judgement was authored by Justice Karol. 

The appellant (original defendant) had approached the Court raising objections to the amendment carried out by the respondent (original plaintiff) in the Plaint. The dispute before the Court was, whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior Bench had erred in permitting the amendment to the plaint filed by the original plaintiffs. The Court did not "find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment." 

In the partition suit, the original plaintiff did not challenge the validity or the genuineness of the Will in the plaint at the outset. But a year later, the original plaintiff questioned the authenticity of the Will through an amendment application. He contended that establishing its genuineness was essential for determining succession based on the Will. The Court endorsed High Court's decision because without resolving the issue of the Will and its genuineness, partitioning the suit property would not be possible.

The Court's interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 is as under:

The essence of the provision is: 

• Amendment of pleading can be allowed at any stage in the legal proceedings; 
• The amendment, in question must be necessary to determine the ‘real question of controversy’;
• In an event, such an amendment is carried out by a party, post the commencement of the trail, the Courts must, while granting such leave to amend, ought to come to a conclusion that, such an amendment could not have been carried out prior to that particular point of time, when the same was actually brought.   
  

The Court relied upon several judgments to consider the law relating to the amendment of pleadings:

•     North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das wherein, the Supreme Court has held that, while considering matters relating to amendment of pleadings, the Courts should take a liberal approach, however, the same has to be in the four corners of the statutory provisions.
• Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., the Court laid down out principles for amendment of pleadings. 

 The principles are: 

• Without prejudice to the other side, all amendment ought to be allowed which are necessary to determine the ‘real question in controversy’. The same is mandatory in nature; 
• Without prejudice to the other side, in the event, such an amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiple proceedings;
• The amendments which are not permitted are- (a) while seeking amendment, the parties does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side; (b) amendment divesting the other side of certain valuable accrued right; (c) amendments that would alter the nature of the suit; (d) the prayer for amendment is malafide; (e) by the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.

General Principles for allowing amendment are:

(a) a liberal approach must be taken, instead of a hyper-technical approach; (b) Amendment to be allowed when there is an absence of a material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach; (c) However, the cause of action should not be altered by the amendment carried out.

The Court relied upon these principles and interpretation. It observed that in the present case, the dispute in hand is of a procedural aspect. It upheld the High Court’s verdict.