IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for determining the real question in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not cause prejudice or injustice to the other side.

JUDGMENT :

1. By these three Interim Applications, Applicants who are the Original Plaintiffs in the respective suits are seeking to amend the Plaints in terms of the draft amendments set out in Schedule-1.

2. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appears for Applicants and would submit that the amendments are only seeking to make averments regarding the admissions and acknowledgment by the Respondent of its liability to the Applicants. That the averments support the same cause of action for which the suits have been filed i.e. for recovery of monies lent by Applicants to Respondent. Applicants seek to make these amendments to obviate any technical argument by Respondent that there is no pleading in the plaint that the Respondent has admitted its liability to the Applicants in various documentary records of the Respondents.

3. Mr. Mehta, would submit that the documents sought to be included are inter-partes documents which already form part of the compilation admitted by the Respondent. That these are the documents from the Plaintiffs pleadings itself. Mr. Mehta, refers to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahadev Vs. Balaji and Ors., 2012 SCC Online Bom 1283 Mr. Mehta, would submit that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) mandates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after commencement of trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Mr. Mehta would submit that in the facts of the case, the trial has not yet commenced in as much as the Applicants, the Plaintiffs, in the suits have not yet filed affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witnesses and therefore, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC would come into play only after that stage. Mr. Mehta, would, therefore, submit that in the interest of justice, the amendments be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Raheja, learned Counsel for the Respondent opposes the Applications for amendment submitting that despite the Applicants having chosen not to file their evidence and have gone ahead to file this Application for amendment only to delay the proceedings post commencement of the trial. Mr. Raheja, would refer to an email communication dated 4th August, 2020 from the Plaintiffs to the Respondents and in particular to paragraphs 2 to 4 thereof and would submit that Plaintiffs have categorically submitted that their clients, Plaintiffs, do not propose to lead oral evidence and despite that and having foreclosed their right to lead evidence i.e. after the commencement of trial have filed these applications for amendment seeking to only delay the proceedings. Mr. Raheja would, therefore, submit that the Applications be rejected.

5. I have heard learned Counsel at some length and also considered the rival contentions.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to quote Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC as under:-

“17. 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”.

7. The said Rule refers to amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend its 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 such amendment shall be allowed after the tri