Amendments to pleadings should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the other party. Amendments filed after the commencement of trial can only be allowed if the party can show due diligence in raising the matter earlier.

1. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the opposite party. As such, the matter is heard ex parte.

2. The plaintiff in a suit for eviction has preferred the instant revisional application against partial rejection of the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint of the said suit.

3. By virtue of the said amendment, the plaintiff inter alia sought to introduce the current address of the defendant/opposite party in the cause title as well as to introduce the allegation that the defendant has purchased a flat, through her son, at such new address and is now residing there, keeping the suit premises under lock and key.

4. This apart, the amendment sought to alter the valuation of the suit from Rs.12,100/- to Rs.24,100/-. In the body of the amendment application, it was stated that the monthly rent as tendered by the defendant was Rs.2,000/-, which necessitated the amendment regarding valuation.

5. It is relevant to mention here that, in paragraph no. 5 of the original plaint, it was stated that Pranab Kumar Das, a ‘sebait’ other than the one who filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiff deity, had reduced the rate of rent to Rs.1,000/- per month payable according to English calendar.

6. The Trial Court allowed the amendments relating to the acquisition of new property by the defendant’s son and change of address of the defendant, but refused to allow the parts of the amendment whereby the valuation of the suit was sought to be changed. The premise of such rejection was that the plaintiff must have known the actual rate of rent of the suit property from the very inception of the suit and that, after commencement of trial, the plaintiff intended to incorporate that the rate of rent was Rs.2,000/-. As such, the said part of the amendment was refused by invoking the proviso to the amended Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner argues that the Trial Court refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in not permitting the amendment relating to change of valuation of the suit. It is argued that, in terms of Section 10 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970, in every suit in which the court fee is payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal the Court shall, on the date fixed for the appearance of the opposite party or as soon as may be thereafter, and in every case before proceeding to deliver judgment, record a finding whether sufficient court fee has been paid. In case of insufficient court fees having been paid, consequences such as stay of all further proceedings in the suit are also contemplated in the said section.

8. As such the plaintiff, it is argued, only sought to assist the Court by pointing out the proper valuation of the suit for the purpose of assessment of court fees by way of the amendment and as such, the amendment in that regard ought to have been allowed as a matter of course, without going into the rigours of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel further argued that the proposed amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

9. In this context, learned counsel cites a judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2015) 4 SCC 182 [Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.]. In the said judgment, it was held inter alia that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.

10. It was further held that an amendment application should be normally granted unless by virtue of the amendment, nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the defendant. Since the amendment had been taken out in the said case to give the correct value of the suit property, as the market