An amendment to a plaint is permissible if it does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action and does not prejudice the defendants, as per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. Pramod Nair on behalf of learned counsel Ms. Neharica Sahay, for petitioner and learned Counsel Sri. Chintan Chinnappa for the Caveator/respondent No.1.

2. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed.

3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. The present petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4, challenging the impugned order passed on IA.No.4 in Commercial O.S.No.1317/2024 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking certain amendments in the plaint.

5. The plaintiff initiated the suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount. Prior to the commencement of trial, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to incorporate certain relief in the prayer column of the plaint. Objections came to be filed to the said application.

6. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsels for both parties, the learned Commercial Court has allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to carry out the amendment by incorporating the prayers sought in addition to the already existing prayers in the plaint. It is this order that is questioned by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4.

7. It is the vehement contention of learned senior counsel Sri. Promod Nair appearing on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4, that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and the same deserves to be set aside, as it runs contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint. It is also contended that the amendment that is sought is in total contravention to the pleadings set forth and the relief sought in the original plaint whereby there was absolutely no relief that was sought against defendant No.1 and as the invoices are all against the other defendants and not defendant No.1. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is in contravention to the settled principles of law and the same is passed in a mechanical manner without applying its mind to the relevance of the amendment that is sought by the plaintiff. After the defendant Nos.1 to 4 had put forth their statement of objections to one of the applications by taking a plea that no relief is sought against the defendant No. 1 and therefore the suit cannot be maintainable as against defendant No. 1, so also no relief could be granted against defendant No. 1.

8. It is also vehemently contended by learned senior counsel for the defendants that the Commercial Court has committed a gross error in not opining and coming to a conclusion as to why the amendment is required and whether it would change the nature of the suit, as the same is not answered, and what the trial Court has held is that the same would be decided in the course of trial. So, therefore, this finding or reasoning of the Commercial Court would not be the correct proposition for allowing the application for amendment as primarily the trial Court requires to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of proper reasoning that the amendment that is sought does not change the nature of the suit. Thereafter, only the application could be allowed whereas in the present case on hand, the commercial Court has come to a conclusion that the new facts that are brought before the Court by the plaintiff by way of amendment could be accepted as it can be decided after trial, which is seriously objected to by the learned senior counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 4.

9. It is also contended by learned senior counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 that when there is a change in the cause of action and a change in the nature of the suit, the same would have to be addressed by the trial Co