Proviso To Order 6 Rule 17 Of CPC Will Not Apply To Suits Instituted Prior To Amendment In 2002: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was inserted vide 2002 amendment will not apply to suits instituted prior to 2002.

Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC empowers the Court to allow parties to alter or amend their pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The Proviso to Rule 17 provides that application for amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of the trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

Petitioners approached the Trial Court for return of land and payment of compensation. Counsel for petitioners submitted that a formal amendment application was moved at the stage of final hearing to ensure that the land is returned in favour of the trust and not a private person. However, the amendment application was rejected on grounds that it was filed at very belated stage.

Challenging the order, counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned, though not explicitly, relies on Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was amended in 2002. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Town Muncipal Council to argue that amended Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC will not apply to suits filed prior to the amendment. It was also argued that the amendment sought did not change the nature of the suit.

The Court observed that in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad, the Apex Court had held that Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC does not apply to a suit filed in 1988.

Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of amendment, therefore, this cannot be ground to reject the amendment application.”

Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court was set aside and the petitioners were directed to carry out necessary amendments in the plaint.

Case Title: The Sinha Development Trust And Another vs. State Of Up And 15 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9021 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 553

Counsel for Petitioner: Nipun Singh, Sumit Suri

Counsel for Respondent: Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

Click Here To Read/Download Order