Clarificatory amendments post-final arguments allowable without strict due diligence proof if necessary for real controversy adjudication, no prejudice caused, prioritizing liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which the application for amendment of the memorandum of appeal is allowed.

3. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner no.1-Management and the petitioner no.2-School assailing the order passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service), 1977 (for short, ‘the Act of 1977’) which was filed by the respondent no.3 challenging his resignation and seeking relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. The controversy arises in the backdrop of following facts which are put in nutshell as under:-

The respondent no.3 was appointed on 01.04.2013 on the post of Assistant Teacher in the school run by the petitioner no.1-Management. The appointment of the respondent no.3 was approved by order dated 23.06.2013 and on completion of his probation period on 31.03.2015, he got the approval as confirmed teacher by order dated 21.10.2015. After rendering few years of service, the services of the respondent no.3 were put to an end on the basis of his notice of resignation dated 11.07.2019 and further resignation dated 28.09.2019 which was given effect from 13.10.2019. However, these actions were challenged by the respondent no.3 by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1977 before the School Tribunal. The Management appeared in the appeal and filed its written statement.

At the stage of final arguments of the appeal, the respondent no.3 filed an application for amendment to the memorandum of appeal seeking to submit clarifications to his averments to bring the case in tune with its pleadings, and the application came to be allowed by order dated 02.09.2025. The petitioners have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati.

5. Shri J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the amendment application deserved to be rejected particularly considering the stage at which the application was filed. He submitted that in a purported attempt to clarify the stand, the respondent no.3 wants to incorporate major changes to its case thereby changing entirely the nature of pleadings. He strenuously submitted that the amendmentapplicationfiledbytherespondentno.3 without demonstrating any due diligence at the stage when final hearing was concluded deserved to be rejected. By relying on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), he submitted that without demonstrating due diligence by the respondent no.3, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In support of his submissions, he invited attention to the order-sheet of the Tribunal which shows the stage of the proceedings as completion of arguments, at which the application for amendment is filed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on following case laws:-

i. Ganga Bai Versus Vijay Kumar & Others [1974 Mh.L.J. 602].

ii. Sau. Anita Anant Kaidalwar Versus Suhas Manoharrao Umathe & Others [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 797].

iii. Himgiri Castings Pvt.Ltd. Versus Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh [2025 SCC OnLine Bom 135