Amendments to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 require sufficient reasoning; extensive changes that alter the nature of the suit were not permitted as a new filing.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the allowing, by the learned Senior Civil Judge (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi ("the learned SCJ"), of an application filed by the respondents, who were the petitioners in the proceedings before the learned SCJ, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. For the purposes of the present order, suffice it to note that CS 83478/2016 was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, against the petitioners-defendants, seeking a declaration that the petitioners in the present petition were the defendants in CS 83478/2016, and the respondents herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit. For ease of reference, the petitioners and respondents would be collectively referred to as Manoranjan etc. and Simran etc. respectively.

3. Simran etc. filed CS 83478/2016, seeking a declaration that they were the legal heirs of Smt. Joginder Kaur and Shri Amarjeet Singh along with Manoranjan etc. and on that basis, seeking a restraint against Manoranjan etc. from creating any third party right in the suit property.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, Simran etc. moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the prayer in the plaint and alter the recitals therein. The amendment in the prayer clause in the plaint, effectively converted the plaint from one seeking declaration to one seeking partition.

5. Manoranjan etc. resisted the application on the ground that it effectively altered the entire nature of the plaint and was beyond the permissible limits of amendment as envisaged under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

6. The application of Simran etc. under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was dismissed by the learned SCJ vide order dated 7th September, 2015. Simran etc. challenged the said order before this Court by way of CM(M) 1189/2015. By order dated 9th March, 2017, this Court disposed of the said CM(M) 1189/2015. The plea that the amendments changed the nature of the suit was rejected by this Court holding that there was no change in the nature of the suit. However, the Court held that, as nearly every paragraph of the suit had been amended, it amounted virtually to the filing of entirely a new suit, which could not be permitted under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. For this purpose, this Court relied on its earlier decision in Arvind Garg v. Neeta Singhal, ILR (2014) 1 Delhi 334. Simran etc. were, therefore, granted liberty to file a fresh application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, keeping in view the observations contained in the order dated March, 2017, passed by this Court.

7. Simran etc., accordingly, filed a fresh application, which stands allowed by the learned SCJ by the present impugned order dated 26th October, 2021.

8. A reading of the application, presently, filed by Simran etc., for amending the plaint, reveals that almost fifty paragraphs of the plaint have been sought to be changed. Despite this, and despite the observations contained in the order dated 9th March, 2017, passed by this Court in CM(M) 1189/2015, as to the permissibility of such wholesale amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the learned SCJ has merely allowed the amendments on the sole ground that the amendments were necessary for a just adjudication of the matter and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Consequent to allowing the amendments, the learned SCJ has returned the plaint on the ground that the plaint as amended is beyond her pecuniary jurisdiction.

9. This reasoning, prima facie, is entirely insufficient as a ground to allow the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

10. Given the observations contained in the order dated 9th March, 2017 passed by this Court in CM(M) 1189/2015, I am of the opinion that the reasons provided by the learned SCJ in the impugned order dated 26th October, 2021, for allowing the amendments as proposed in the plaint filed by the plaintiff, are insufficiently.

11. It is made clear that this Court is not