A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE first part of O. 6 R. 17 of the Civil P. C. providing that "the Court may" allow either party to amend his pleading, has given rise to a general impression that amendments of pleading always rest in the discretion of a Court. The impression however deep-rooted, is not well-founded, for it ignores the second part of R. 17 providing that "all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties". The user of the two words "may'' and "shall'' in such close proximity in the same sentence would at once demonstrate that one cannot mean the other, unless we choose to, which we should not, think that the Legislature had no sense of words. The conclusion, therefore, must be that while the first part of R. 17 dealing with amendments in general vests the Court with discretion, the later part, dealing with such amendments as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties, imposes an a obligation on the Court, and not merely a, discretion, to allow such amendments. The observation of the Privy Council in Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir (1912) IL

Click Here to Read the rest of this document