Order VI Rule 18 CPC | If Plaint Is Not Amended Within Given Time, It Cannot Be Amended Thereafter: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that once an application for amendment of plaint is allowed, the same has to be amended within the given time frame.

Referring to Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that if the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, it cannot be amended thereafter.

"It is the settled position in law that once an application for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1," the Court said.

The observation was made while adjudicating upon a revision petition challenging the order allowing an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and dismissing the defendant's application under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

The impugned order directed the plaintiffs to file the amended plaint on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later. In the hearing, the Plaintiffs sought adjournment because the main counsel was not available. The Court noted that the record reflects that since inception, on several occasions, the Plaintiffs have failed to appear before the Court despite being duly served.

On perusal of the impugned order, the Court found out that the trial court disposed of the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. One of the grounds in the said application seeking rejection of the plaint was on account of deficiency in payment of the Court fees by the Plaintiffs. Subsequently, the Court noticed that the Plaintiffs did not pay the Court fee, and an application under Section 148 CPC was filed to seek an extension of time in depositing the said fees. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn.

On the same date, the Plaintiffs were permitted to move an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, along with an application under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants, were again considered by the Trial Court and decided in the impugned order.

The said order allowed the amendment of the plaint, dismissing the defendant's application seeking rejection of the plaint due to non-compliance with the earlier order.

After that, the suit was dismissed for default, and non-prosecution vide subsequent order.

On perusing the impugned order, the Court noted that application for amendment of the suit was allowed, and the Plaintiffs were required to file the amended plaint. The said amended objection was not filed on several dates. Plaintiff also did not regularly appear before the Trial Court. It is under these circumstances that the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

In the present case, the Court noted that the suit had been dismissed for want of amended plaint and non-prosecution. Disposing of the petition and pending applications as infructuous, the Court noted that no further orders are required.

However, it also clarified that if Plaintiff seeks restoration of the suit before the Trial Court, various non-compliances of the orders passed shall be considered by the Trial Court. The Defendants' objections shall be considered before allowing any restoration of the suit.

Case Title: Tharvinder Singh & Ors v. Viresh Chopra & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 145

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order