The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on allowing amendments to pleadings after the trial has commenced, emphasizing the need for due diligence and balancing just adjudication with potential prejudice to the opposite party.

Headnote:
Amendment of Pleadings - Article 227 - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530, 2009(2) SCC 409 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the limitations on allowing amendments after the trial has commenced. It highlighted the need for due diligence in seeking amendments and the potential prejudice to the opposite party. The court emphasized the importance of just and effective adjudication while considering amendments and the need to balance it with the potential prejudice to the opposite party.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a petition under Article 227 to set aside the order dismissing their application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the proposed amendments were sought at a belated stage, and the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not seeking the amendments earlier. It concluded that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would be prejudicial to the opposite party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow the amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at a belated stage of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amendments should not be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party seeking the amendment can show due diligence in not seeking it earlier. It emphasized the need to balance just and effective adjudication with the potential prejudice to the opposite party.
Final Decision: The petition under Article 227 was dismissed as it was devoid of merit.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul J. (Oral) - The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide which an application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the proposed amendments are necessary to elucidate and elaborate the stand already taken by the petitioners in the plaint. He further submits that the counsel for the petitioners while preparing the case, felt the necessity to amend the plaint and since foundation of the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the proposed amendment already exist in the plaint, i.e., the factum of partition on the basis of the Salasnamna dated 09.11.2003, the respondents would not be in any manner adversely affected by the proposed amendment.

3. Learned counsel still further submits that though the Salasnama had been duly attested by all the parties including the respondents, however, its execution had been disputed by the respondents in the written statement. Hence, in the circumstances, the proposed amendment would be necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in 'Prithi Pal Singh and another vs. Amrik Singh and others', 2013(9) SCC 576; 'Mahila Ramkali Devi and others vs. Nandram (D) Thr. Lrs and others', 2015(3)SCC 132; 'Varun Pahwa vs. Mrs. Renu Chaudhary', 2019(2) RCR (Civil) 383; 'State of Bihar and others vs. Modern Tent House and anr', 2017(8) SCC 567; 'M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal', 2017(5) SCC 212 and 'Mount Mary Enterprises vs. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.', 2015(4) SCC 182.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the relevant material on record.

4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which is as follows:

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 is 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."

5. It is perspicious from a bare reading of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that once the trial has commenced, amendment of pleadings should not ordinarily be allowed unless and until the parties seeking such amendment are able to show that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been sought before the commencement of the trial.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 530 has held as under:-

'27. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document