JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the common order dated 27.1.2022 in I.A.Nos.1/2022 & 2/2022 in O.P.No.10/2022 passed by the District Court, Kottayam. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.P.No.10 of 2022 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking leave to institute a suit for declaring that the decision of the Episcopal Synod taken on 16.9.2021 electing and nominating the Catholicos and Malankara Metropolitan of the first petitioner Church as ultravires and also for declaring the decision taken on 17.9.2021 by the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association as null and void.

2. The respondents filed applications for amending the petition to incorporate the events that occurred after the filing of the original petition by way of I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022. The District Court, Kottayam allowed both the applications through a common order.

3. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows:-

(1) As there is no provision for amendment of a petition filed under Section 92, CPC, the applications to amend the original petition are not maintainable.

(2) As the proposed plaint has not been registered, the proposed amendments will become otiose.

(3) The proposed amendments will change the nature and character of the proceedings apart from introducing new causes of action alleged to have arisen after the institution of the proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted as follows:-

(1) The provisions of Order VI Rule 17 can be pressed into service even in proceedings other than the original suit as per Section 141, CPC.

(2) Even with the aid of Section 151, CPC, the Court is competent to incorporate amendment in a petition filed under Section 92, CPC.

(3) If the amendments are not permitted to be incorporated at the stage of considering the question of leave, the respondents will not get an opportunity to incorporate the proposed amendments in view of the principle that a suit under Section 92, CPC, must be limited to matters included in the sanction and it is not competent to the Court to enlarge the scope of the suit and grant reliefs other than those included in the sanction.

6. The questions that arise for consideration are :

(a) Is Order VI Rule 17 of CPC applicable to proceedings under Section 92, CPC ?

(b) Whether the impugned order resulted in injustice to the petitioners warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. A petition under Section 92, CPC, is a 'Miscellaneous Proceeding' as provided under Section 141, CPC. Petition for leave under Section 92, CPC, is to be filed as an original petition as provided in Rule 56 of Civil Rules of Practice. Such a petition is to be numbered as an original petition, and a suit is to be registered and numbered only when it is validly instituted after leave is granted.

8. As the first question relates to the applicability of Order VI Rule 17, CPC, in a proceeding under Section 92, it is profitable to extract the relevant rule. Rule 17 of Order VI reads thus:-

“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

9. As per Order VI Rule 1, ‘pleading’ shall mean plaint or written statement.

10. The learned Senior Counsel relying on the definition of ‘pleading’ as prov