The Court emphasized the importance of allowing bonafide amendments and the need to liberally construe the amendment in the pleadings to consider the real controversy between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J.(Oral) - Petitioner has filed the present revision against the order dated 18.4.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Tarn Taran, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. Perusal of the record would show that the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed by the trial Court on 2.8.2018. The said order has not been assailed by the defendant in any manner. The necessary amendment arising out of acceptance of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC vis-a-vis the person who has been allowed to be impleaded is sought to be made under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Since the application has been allowed on 2.8.2018, the only surviving prayer is in respect of claim No. A in the head note, which is sought to be amended by mentioning total land and khasra number in the suit.

3. It is a settled principle of law that all bonafide amendments are to be allowed. An amendment in the pleadings is to be liberally construed so as to consider real controversy between the parties and to give the verdict more satisfactorily. The proviso to the Rule to some extent curtails absolute discretion of the Court to allow amendment at any stage, however knowledge and diligence are the considerations on which bona fides of the party has to be tested in order to prevent frivolous applications for amendment. The object of the Rule is that the Court must try the merit of the case and allow all amendments which may be necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties. In this regard reference can be made to Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) and ors., (2007) 6 SCC 737 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi, AIR 2006 SC 1647 .

4. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is in two parts. First part is discretionary and leaves it to the Court to order amendment in the pleadings. Second part is imperative and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for determining real issue between the parties. The first condition for the amendment is that it should not be unjust and result in prejudice against the opposite party and could not be compensated in terms of cost or would deprive the opposite party for a valuable right which has accrued to him with the passage of time.

5. The second condition is that the amendment should be perceived by the court to be necessary for just decision of the case. All amendments are to be allowed which satisfy the aforesaid two conditions. Amendment can be refused, if such a prayer is barred by time or where the opposite party would suffer irreparable loss which could not be compensated in terms of cost(s). The Court can allow the amendment at any stage of proceedings for the purposes of determining real issues between the parties. The whole object of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of litigation, however no such amendment should be allowed which may result in material prejudice to the opposite party and is not capable of being compensated in terms of cost(s).

6. Before the amendment can be allowed, the Court should satisfy itself where such an amendment is necessary for determining real issues in controversy. If such condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which governs the discretion of the Court in granting or refusing the amendment. The other consideration which governs the discretion of the Court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to other side.

7. Ordinarily, if other side is compensated with cost(s), then there is no injustice, but if irreparable loss is caused to the opposite side, then such amendment cannot be granted. Amendments of written statement is more liberally construed than the amendment in the plaint. The purpose for imposing cost is to discourage mala fide amendments which are designed to delay the legal proceedings. Secondly the cost(s) is to compensate th