This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 05/03/2013, in I.A.No.2843 of 2007 in O.S.No.93 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge. (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. He has pleaded that on 10/08/2006, the respondent has executed an agreement of sale in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2843 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) for amendment of the plaint by adding paragraphs 2(a) & 2(b) to the plaint. The Court below rejected the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.

Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is appropriate to mention that a large chunk of cases filed in this Court arises out of disputes pertaining to amendment of pleadings. A perusal of several orders of the lower Courts convinces me to conclude that in majority cases, they have been failing to comprehend the true purport of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC with reference to the settled legal position holding the field. An effort is therefore made in this judgment to concisely explain the law on the subject.

Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, which is relevant for disposal of this case, reads as under:

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.”

A little peep into the legislative history relating to amendment of pleadings would reveal that Rule 17 as it originally stood was without the proviso. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 did not affect the said rule. However, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this Rule was deleted. Though the said Amendment Act received the assent of the President on 30/12/1999, it had never been brought into force. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, reintroduced Rule 17 by adding the proviso to it.

A careful reading of the above reproduced statutory provision would show that it per se does not impose any restriction on the Court in permitting the amendments except to the extent that the Court needs to be satisfied that such amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties; and that in cases where the trial has commenced, the Court also must be satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, by way of judicial precedents, the Courts have laid down various parameters for exercising the power by the Courts under this provision.

Traditionally, Courts have been making a liberal approach in allowing amendments to the pleadings. About 135 years ago, in Tildersley Vs. Harper (1878) 10 Ch.D.393 Bramwell L.J. made the following observations:

“I have had much to do in chambers with applications for leave to amend, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that this humble branch of learning is very familiar to me. My practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that, by his blunder he had done some injury to his opponent which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise.”

A few years later, Pollock.,J, in Steward Vs. North Metropolitan Tramways Co.(1886) 16 QB 178, quoted with approval the observations of Bramwell L.J. in Tildersley (1-supra) and state