IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action that would prejudice the other party.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in court.

2. Let it be kept with the record.

Prayer:

3. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 02.09.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 83 of 2006 by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-VIII, Hazaribag by which the amendment petition dated 28.08.2003 filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

4. Brief facts of the fact, as per the pleadings made in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition, reads as under:

5. The plaintiffs have filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 83 of 2006 seeking relief for declaration of title, declaration of demarcation of land, appointment of pleader commission and delivery of possession of the schedule land. The petitioners-plaintiffs, when the suit was at the stage of argument, filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to make certain amendment in the plaint stating inter alia that due to typing and clerical mistake certain amendments are necessary in the plaint for the proper adjudication of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently opposed the petition of the plaintiff.

6. The learned trial court considering the submissions advanced by the parties and considering the fact that the amendment has been sought for at the belated stage when the defendant has already concluded the final argument and the plaintiff has not furnished the satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in filing the amendment petition, rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff, against which the present petition.

Argument on behalf of petitioners:

7. Mr. Rashidi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from error since without assigning any reason amendment petition has been rejected merely on the ground that the amendment petition has been filed at the belated stage when the defendant has already concluded the final argument. Further ground for rejecting the amendment petition has been taken that the plaintiffs-petitioners has not furnished any satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in filing the amendment petition. Contention has been raised that so far as the applicability of the law to allow the amendment in the plaint or the written statement, as the case may be, by filing petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is concerned, it can be considered at the any stage of the proceeding, subject to certain conditions i.e., when the nature of the suit is not changed; when the amendment would not result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; when defeats the law of limitation, if fresh suit of amendment plaint would be passed; when there is a general rule it would be rejected but to avoid multiplicity. Herein, none of the ground is available and only on the ground that the amendment has been filed at belated stage, the amendment petition has been rejected.

8. It has further been submitted that the amendment sought for is formal in nature which are the necessary corrections which are to be carried out in the plaint, caused due to clerical mistake i.e., correction of description of plot no. i.e., in place of plot no. 1000 plot no. 1007 is to be corrected. It has been submitted since the same has been acknowledged by the petitioner at the belated stage hence the amendment petition has been filed for making necessary correction in the plot nos. as referred in the schedule property.

9. It has been submitted that the learned trial court without appreciating the fact that the amendment sought for is formal in nature and it is not going to change the nature of suit has rejected the petition merely on the ground that it has been sought for at the belated stage.

10. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order therefore suffers from error and requires interf