The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and the consideration of prejudice or injustice to the other party in the context of amendment applications.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

I.A. No. 3272 of 2011 in L.P.A. No. 63 of 2011

This application has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for incorporating the following prayers in Letters Patent Appeal :

“a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to call for and quash the decision of the State of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, a decision has been taken to reject the portion of the claim of interest subsidy of the petitioner for the financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the ground that there was alleged delay in repayment of interest by the petitioner to its banker;

b. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for declaring the provisions of Clause 4.3 Ka (4) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 as ultra vires and contrary to the Industrial Policy, 2001;

c. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to pay the balance amount of Rs.67,42,522/- payable to the petitioner towards interest subsidy for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 as per the provisions and stipulation contained in Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001.”

2. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for M/s Shivam Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), submits that the amendment application which should have been filed in C.O. No.3 of 2011 was inadvertently filed by the Company in L.P.A. No.63 of 2011.

3. We are not inclined to accept the plea of inadvertence taken on behalf of the Company primarily for the reason that L.P.A. No.63 of 2011 with C.O. No.3 of 2011 came on Board for hearing on several occasions in the last eleven years since I.A. No.3272 of 2011 was filed – 22 times but this application was never pressed.

4. Still, since Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the Company, has referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and argued this matter at length, we would deal I.A. No.3272 of 2011 on merits also.

5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the Company, submits that in Cont. Case (Civil) No.224 of 2011 the State of Jharkhand took a new plea which was not raised before the writ Court nor in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State to deny a part of interest subsidy to the Company and, therefore, it became necessary for the Company to file amendment application. It is submitted that by virtue of a liberty granted to the Company in Cont. Case (Civil) No.224 of 2011, I.A. No.3272 of 2011 has been filed.

6. After amendment in Order VI Rule 17 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act), 2002 the Court may permit either party to a suit to amend his pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, we would not take a rigid view to examine maintainability of I.A No.3272 of 2011 with the yardstick of the limitations which are applied to an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. It is well-settled that all amendments which are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be allowed. One of the considerations whether amendment should be granted or not is to find out whether it would cause prejudice to the other party or injustice to the applicant.

8. In “Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons” (2009) 10 SCC 84 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the decision on an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a very serious exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner but at the same time bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments should not be refused by the Court.

9. According to the Company, the necessity for filing the present application arose on account of the order dated 23rd October 2010 by which interest subsidy for a particular year was ref