[Order VI Rule 17 CPC] Amendment Of Pleadings Permissible After Commencement Of Trial If Necessary For Arriving At A Just Conclusion: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) could be allowed even after the commencement of the trial, if the amendments sought are necessary for effective adjudication of controversy between the parties.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha was considering the case of the petitioner/plaintiff whose amendment petition was rejected by the Trial Court. The petitioner/plaintiff was claiming title over the suit land in possession of the respondents/defendants. The petitioner sought to amend the total area of land sold to him and the total number of purchasers. The respondents contended that the amendment would change the nature of the suit.

The High Court noted that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC does not allow amendments to the pleadings after the commencement of the trial except under certain conditions. It referred to a Supreme Court case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. (2022), where the Court explained the conditions under which amendment could be allowed and disallowed.

The High Court stated that “In sum and substance, if the amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.” It further stated that the Court needs to consider whether the amendment would allow it to determine the real question in controversy. If the amendment sought avoids multiplicity of litigation, then it needs to be allowed.

In the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner/plaintiff wants to correct certain factual aspects, which is necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. Even though the petitioner filed an amendment petition at a late stage of trial and failed to show reasons why the correction sought was not incorporated in the original plaint, the Court allowed the amendment sought by the petitioner. It rejected the respondent's arguments that the amendment would change the nature of the suit.

The Court held “…it is much apparent that the amendment has been sought after the evidence of plaintiffs started, but it is the suit of plaintiffs and if any delay is caused, ultimately the plaintiffs would be sufferer. It could not be said that allowing the amendment at this stage would not cause prejudice to the other side. However, if the other side could be compensated in terms of cost, the amendment could be allowed.”

The Court quashed the decision of the Trial Court and allowed the amendment petition of the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 to the respondents.

Case title: Kamal Kishore Prasad vs. Sri Lal Kumar Rai & Ors., C.Misc. No.657 of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 44

Click Here To Read/Download Order