IMPORTANT POINT
It is settled law that grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; when the amendment would result introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice other party; when allowing amendment application defeats law of limitation.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. – Amendment of pleadings – Appellant’s father purchased suit lands at a public auction held under Mining operations – After death of father, appellant was carrying mining operations – Respondent .2 State invited some companies to take suit lands on lease against rights and interest of appellant – Suit filed by Appellant seeking declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operation, to use and sell over suit lands against respondent No.2' s infringement of such exclusive right of appellant over suit land – Appellant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and also consequential relief for possession of suit lands and for damages trespassing into and carrying on mining operations on suit lands and same was allowed –Revision petition thereagainst by respondent 1 – Allowed by High Court – Appeal – In spite of plaintiff being put in knowledge of act of person in possession of suit property it did not chose to implead the said M/s Sarwagi & Co. P. Ltd. (D-2) which came on record on its own application as D-2 in suit – In spite of reply notice and specific plea taken in written statement of D-1, plaintiff did not chose to take steps to get plaint amended suitably and instead allowed suit to go on and examined the witnesses on his behalf and cross-examined witnesses produced by defendants - Only during the stage of arguments, the plaintiff came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17seeking amendment of pleadings – Action of the plaintiff at the stage of argument could not be permitted – Admittedly, plaintiff failed to adhere to said recourse at appropriate time – In original suit, plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell suit schedule property and in petition filed during course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from second defendant – The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 but even on merits his claim held liable to be rejected – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 5 to 8)
        Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. – Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just – Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made – Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial – In the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made – In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso. (Para 5)
       Facts of the case :
        1. Appellant’s father herein in the instant case purchased suit lands at a public auction held under Mining operations. After death of father, appellant was carrying mining operations. Respondent .2 State invited some companies to take suit lands on lease against rights and interest of appellant. Suit was filed by Appellant seeking declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operation, to use and sell over suit lands against respondent No.2' s infringement of such exclusive right of appellant over suit land. Appellant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and also consequential relief for possession of suit lands and for damages trespassing into and carrying on mining operations on suit lands and same was allowed. Against said order, respondent No.1 approached High Court by way of revision petition. Said revision petition was allowed by High Court.
        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that in spite of plaintiff being put in knowledge of act of person in possession of suit property it did not chose to implead the said M/s Sarwagi & Co. P. Ltd. (D-2) which came on record on its own application as D-2 in suit. In spite of reply notice and specific plea taken in written statement of D-1, plaintiff did not chose to take steps to get plaint amended suitably and instead allowed suit to go on and examined the witnesses on his behalf and cross-examined witnesses produced by defendants. Only during the stage of arguments, the plaintiff came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17seeking amendment of pleadings. Action of the plaintiff at the stage of argument could not be permitted. Admittedly, plaintiff failed to adhere to said recourse at appropriate time. In original suit, plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell suit schedule property and in petition filed during course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from second defendant. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 but even on merits his claim held liable to be rejected. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. versus M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., held that the grant of an application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is subject to specific conditions, particularly when the amendment changes the nature of the case, introduces a new cause of action, prejudices the other party, or defeats the law of limitation (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that while pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally to determine the real questions in controversy, amendments sought after the commencement of the trial (especially after evidence is closed) require the applicant to satisfy the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which mandates showing that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific facts of this case, the plaintiff was fully aware of the possession and mining operations by the second defendant (M/s Sarwagi & Co.) prior to filing the suit, as evidenced by a reply notice and the written statement of the first defendant which detailed government orders leasing the land (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Despite having this knowledge before the trial commenced, the plaintiff failed to implead the second defendant or amend the plaint to seek possession and damages at that appropriate time. Instead, the plaintiff proceeded with the trial, examined witnesses, and only applied for amendment during the stage of arguments (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the Court ruled that the plaintiff's action of seeking amendment at the argument stage could not be permitted because they failed to adhere to the recourse at the appropriate time and failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 (!) (!) .
The appeal filed by the appellant against the High Court's order setting aside the District Court's amendment order was dismissed as it had no merit, confirming the High Court's decision that the amendment application was rightly rejected (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the order dated 17.08.2004 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 1738 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed the revision filed by respondent No.1 herein.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are :

On 05.01.1948, the father of the appellant purchased the suit lands at Ayitham Valasa Village, Grividi Mandal, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh along with some other properties for Rs.9,176/- at a public auction held under the liquidation proceedings in O.P. No. 30 of 1946 on the file of the District Court at Vizianagaram before the Official Liquidator at Vizagpatnam (Visakhapatnam) in the matter of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and of the Vizianagaram Mining Co. Ltd. in liquidation and the Rajah Saheb and others as creditors in pursuance of the order dated 6.3.1946 passed by the High Court of Madras in O.P. No. 25 of 1946. The suit lands were registered on 30.4.1948 under the Registered Document No. 732 of 1948 in Book I, Volume 346 at pages 147 to 151 in the office of the Registrar at Vizianagaram in favour of the father of the appellant conveying, transferring and assigning all the rights including ownership, possession and interests of Vizianagaram Mining Co. Ltd., i.e., right to mining operations, use and sell the said lands. The mining operations were carried over the said lands in the name and style as M/s Ashwani Rajkumar Mining & Trading Company by the father of the appellant. In 1958, the father of the appellant expired. After the death of father, the appellant was carrying the mining operations. In 1960, the appellant left Vizianagaram for Jagadalpur because of his other business work. In 2001-2002, the appellant came to know that respondent No.2 - State of Andhra Pradesh, was planning to lease out the said lands for mining operation to other companies. On 22.3.2002, the appellant issued a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. to the State through his counsel asking the State not to give the suit property on lease to any other party and not to interfere with the rights and interest of the appellant over the suit lands. On 8.7.2002, the appellant came to know that respondent No.2-State has invited some companies to take the suit lands on lease against the rights and interest of the appellant. On 20.8.2002, the appellant filed Original Suit No.6 of 2002 in the Court of the Additional District Court, Vizianagaram seeking declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operation, to use and sell over the suit lands against respondent No.2 s infringement of such exclusive right of the appellant over the suit lands. An application of ad-interim injunction was also filed restraining respondent No.2 from ever leasing the suit land to strangers against the interest of the appellant over the said lands. When the trial was about to close in the said suit, on 11.6.2003, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by respondent No.1 herein to be added as defendant No.2 in the original suit on the ground that a deed has been executed in its favour by the State leasing the suit lands for mining operations. On 11.7.2003, the said application was allowed by the Additional District Judge and respondent No.1 herein was added as defendant No.2 in the original suit. Thereafter on 14.10.2003, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.1 for appointment of a local Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit lands and to file his report. The said application was allowed by order dated 23.10.2003 and a local Commissioner was appointed. On 3.12.2003, the Commissioner inspected the suit lands and filed its report stating that the suit lands were in possession of respondent No.1 and mining operations were carried by it. In December, 2003 itself, the appellant herein moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and also consequential relief for possession of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 888

2008(4) Supreme 435SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. — AppellantsversusM/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. of 2008Decided on : 14.05.08

2008(4) Supreme 435
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. — Appellants
versus
M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2008
Decided on : 14.05.08