[O.6 R.17 CPC] Amendment Of Pleadings Are Intended To Promote Ends Of Justice, Not Defeat Them: J&K High Court

Upholding the true spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that amendments to pleadings are meant to promote justice, not hinder it.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has emphasised,

“The object of the Rule is that the courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side as ultimately”.

In emphasising the true purpose of courts, Justice Wani underscored that their primary function is to serve justice rather than penalize litigants. He reiterated that courts are empowered to facilitate amendments of pleadings to ensure comprehensive justice for all parties involved.

The case involved Khazan Singh, who filed a suit for a permanent injunction against her sons-in-law regarding a land dispute. Later, realizing an error, she sought to amend the suit to include additional land. The Trial Court, however, rejected her amendment application.

Aggrieved by this decision, Khazan Singh approached the High Court. Her argument centered on the Trial Court's mechanical rejection without considering the case's merits.

Focusing on the core principle behind Order VI Rule 17 the bench explained that this rule empowers courts to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings and this ensures a just determination of the actual issues between the parties.

Th bench further emphasized that amendments should be allowed as long as they don't cause undue prejudice to the other side.

The Court drew reference to the Supreme Court judgment "Mahila Ramkali Devi and others v. Nand Ram (dead) through legal representatives and others" (2015) which reiterated that courts exist to deliver justice, not punish parties for procedural lapses.

In alignment with this principle, Justice Wani ruled that denying the amendment would only exacerbate litigation, contravening the spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Consequently, the impugned order was overturned, and the application for amendment was granted, albeit subject to 5K costs.

Case Title: Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment