Amendment of pleadings

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his 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:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,
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."
Cases relating to amendment of pleadings:
In Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Through L.Rs vs. S.K. Sarwagi & Company Private
Limited & Anr.1
The Court considered the scope of amendment of pleadings before or after the commencement of
the trial. In paragraph 18, this Court held as under:"It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions,
namely,
(i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment;
(ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to
prejudice the other party;
(iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation........."
In Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 84,
the Court considered the scope of amendment of pleadings. In paragraph 63, it concluded as
follows:
"Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments
63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge
which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the
case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and
character of the case; and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims
would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors
1 (2008) 14 SCC 364

which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are
only illustrative and not exhaustive."
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others,
At paras 15 & 16:
"15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case 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.
16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts; the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the
court to order amendment of pleading whereas the second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins
the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real
question in controversy between the parties."
Amendment application at any stage:In Smt. Ganga Bai V. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126, the Supreme Court observed as
under:The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may, at any stage, be properly
exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding, but the exercise of such
far-reaching discretionary power is governed by judicial consideration and wider the discretion,
greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.
In M/s Ganesh Trading Co. V. Maoji Ram, the Supreme Court observed that where an
amendment is found to be necessary for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating the
same, the application should be allowed.
Amendment of plaint schedule at the stage of argument:In P.Durga Reddy and another v. B.Yadi Reddy, 2016 (2) ALT 63,
It was observed that delay itself is not a ground to reject the amendment when it can be allowed
on other considerations. Delay can be compensated by costs in such cases.

Cases where ground of change in the nature of plaint has not been accepted:
Mrs. Anita Kumari Gupta Vs. Late Mr. Ved Bhushan (Deceased Thr. L.Rs.) & Ors.

Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Cause of action - Amendment - Scope of - Suit

has been rejected as not disclosing a cause of action - Suit was filed by the plaintif

seeking partition of property, claiming 1/6th share and for ancillary reliefs - Ground
stated inappropriately valued the suit and not paid the appropriate court fees Plaintif having given her no objection before the DDA for mutation of the lease in
the name of defendant No.1 to 3, 5 & 6 - Amendment sought was at a pre-trial
stage and is necessary for adjudication - There is no admission of the Will of the
mother - There is no admission in the plaint, of the property having been mutated in
the names of the defendants - Withdrawal of any admission does not arise - Plaintif
has to sufer for not disclosing in the plaint of having signed papers in blank and
giving the same to the defendants - Suit as originally filed was for partition of the
property, on the ground of the mother of the parties having died intestate - Plaintif
is entitled to either in the replication or by way of amendment of the plaint - It
cannot be said that the nature and character of the suit has changed - There is no
presumption lest rebuttable presumption - Appeal is allowed and the order is set
aside - Rejection of the plaint as well as the order declining the amendment is not
justified - Application for amendment of plaint is allowed and application for
rejection of the plaint is dismissed.