Established limits for amending pleadings after trial onset under CPC provisions.

The provided legal document does not contain a specific judgment or detailed discussion directly addressing the exact duration or limits for extending pleadings under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC. However, it emphasizes the court's broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings if they are necessary for determining the real issues and are made on just terms (!) (!) .

The decision underscores that amendments are generally permitted before the trial begins or at an early stage, and the court evaluates whether the amendments are justified based on principles of justice and fairness. The absence of a fixed time limit implies that the court’s discretion is the guiding principle, with a focus on the circumstances of each case rather than a specific timeframe.

Therefore, the overarching judicial approach is to allow amendments at any point in the proceedings, provided the conditions of necessity, fairness, and absence of undue delay or prejudice are satisfied.

Judgment :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P6) passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.12.2017 with respect to the suit property and in the said case, the petitioner had filed written statement in which it had been stated that agreement was result of forgery, fraud, criminal breach of trust, undue influence and the petitioner had also taken the plea that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff had obtained blank signed stamp papers for security purposes and the entire money was paid back. It is submitted that thereafter on 26.11.2021, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed for amendment of the written statement and the petitioner also wanted to take the plea that money was borrowed on 06.06.2012 and even promissory notes were also issued and the petitioner was wanting to elaborate his earlier plea. It is submitted that however, the said application for amendment has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.07.2022 which order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement deserves to be allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that in the present case, the issues were framed on 27.04.2021 and PW1 and PW2 had filed their affidavits on 11.10.2021 and it is only thereafter that the application for amendment of the written statement dated 26.11.2021 was filed by the present petitioner. It is submitted that it is apparent that the said application was filed after commencement of the trial and all the facts which are now sought to be added in the written statement were already within the knowledge of the petitioner and thus, amendment was hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and was impermissible. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another' reported as 2009(2) SCC 409. It is further submitted that the petitioner is wanting to raise new defence by pleading issuance of promissory notes etc. which were never pleaded by the petitioner in the written statement. It is submitted that even the fact that money was borrowed from the plaintiff allegedly at 3% per month rate of interest was sought to be added and also various incidents of 06.06.2012, 18.12.2014 and 12.12.2017 were sought to be added and thus, the petitioner is wanting to completely change his defence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has taken contrary pleas as on one hand, he has taken the plea that agreement to sell is forged, fabricated and has been executed under undue influence and on the other hand, the petitioner is taking the plea that agreement was entered into as a security document. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 12.12.2017 with respect to the suit land. The said suit was filed on 19.06.2020. Written statement was filed by the petitioner to the said s