Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Principles On Amendment Of Plaint : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court observed that by way of an amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the plaintiff can introduce certain aspects that are necessary to determine the issues between the parties.

The bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol heard a matter where the defendant objected to the plaintiff's application seeking an amendment to the plaint. The dispute pertains to the succession of the property by way of a 'Will'.

In the plaint in the partition suit, the plaintiff had not questioned the validity of the Will, however after a year, via amendment application, the plaintiff had raised questions over the genuineness of the Will and contended that the determination of the genuineness of the Will is a necessary course of action to determine the succession based on the Will.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the Court said that without a determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible.

“The scope of the dispute before us is limited to a procedural aspect. In the larger scheme, this dispute pertains to succession. If there is a Will, it has to be honoured. If one of the parties, who will be affected by the Will coming into effect, challenges it on one ground or the other, the process of succession cannot go forward without determination of the dispute regarding the Will.”, the judgment authored by Justice Karol said.

Principles regarding amendment

Referring to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729, and other precedents, the judgment culled out culled out certain principles :

1. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

2. In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.

3. Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if –

(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side.

(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations)

(c) The amendment completely changes 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.

4 Some general principles to be kept in mind are –

(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.

(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

If Aspect Introduced Is Necessary To Be Decided To Determine Issues Then Delay Occurred In Preferring Amendment Application Wouldn't Have Relevance

The Court observed that the delay occurred in preferring the application to amend the plaint post-commencement of the trial would not have an effect if due diligence was taken.

The Court added that if the aspect introduced by the plaintiff remained undecided, which ought to be decided to determine the issues between the parties, then the delay that occurred in filing an amendment application would not have much relevance.

“Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant submits that the time gap between submitting the written statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay.”, the court said.

“Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, we do 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.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the amendment application was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mangal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) M/S. Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, AOR Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Ms. Charu Rajput, Adv. Ms. Aishvarya, Adv. Mr. Prabhat chowdhary, Adv.

Case Title: DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU VERSUS SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) & ORS., C.A. No. 010812 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Click here to read/download the judgment