Amendments to pleadings are essential for effective adjudication and should not be denied unless significantly prejudicial; discovering new evidence can justify amending pleadings to reflect accuracy in claims.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-02, South-East District, Saket, Delhi, being aggrieved by the order dated 15th March, 2021, whereby, its applications under Order VI Rule 17 and under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC', for short) for amendment of the plaint and for placing on record the additional documents respectively, were dismissed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit bearing CS No.1299/2018 against Sprint Cars Pvt. Ltd., for the recovery of Rs.31,65,271/- along with the interest. The petitioner/plaintiff claims that certain documents and statement of accounts were already placed by it on the record. Summons were issued to the respondents/defendants and they filed their first appearance on 18th October, 2018. They took time to file written statement. In the meantime, on 27th November, 2018, the court referred the matter to the Mediation Centre, Saket Court, for attempting an amicable settlement between the parties, which however, failed. The suit then continued in the court and on 21st December, 2018, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement. The case was then fixed for filing of replication. On 11th March, 2019, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the compilation of rejoinder affidavit to the written statement along with an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VIII Rules 3, 4 & 5 CPC for judgment on admission. An application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was also filed for amending the plaint. The application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was filed for bringing on record documents, such as, further invoices, to substantiate the amendment sought, which was for enhancing the suit claim from Rs.31,65,271/- to Rs.39,03,396/-. There was no change brought to the remaining part of the plaint.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court rejected the application for amendment observing that since the amendment would be resulting in allowing the claim, which was relinquished by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, it could not be allowed. Further, the pleadings have been completed and no reason for filing an application for amendment and bringing additional documents on record was given, except to claim that the bills and invoices were traced subsequently. The application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was dismissed taking a view that since the amendment was not allowed, these documents could not be filed by the plaintiff in view of the amended Order XI Rule 5 CPC, as the dispute was a commercial dispute.

4. Mr. Zahid, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, submitted that the learned Trial Court had misdirected itself in holding that the amendments were belated and that the petitioner/plaintiff had given up the claim that it was belatedly seeking to incorporate in the plaint. The learned counsel submitted that there was no material change to the nature of the suit, as the only amendment that was sought, was the enhancement of the total sum of the claim from Rs.31,65,271/- to Rs.39,03,396/-. It was further submitted that the amendment had been sought at the earliest, as time had been spent, not due to the fault of the petitioner/plaintiff, but, as the matter had been pending before the Mediation Centre. It was submitted that when the respondents/defendants denied having raised invoices, a thorough search was made and the documents and additional invoices were discovered, which also revealed that the respondents/defendants had to pay much more to the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence the application was moved.

5. Mr. Ritik Malik, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, submitted that the orders of the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, was in accordance with law and no ground was made out for allowing the amendment. It was submitted that the suit had originally been filed for Rs.31,65,271/