The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the restriction on seeking amendments to pleadings after the trial has commenced, emphasizing the requirement of due diligence and the objective of preventing delays in filing applications for amendment of pleadings.

Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Y.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The defect stands removed. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear the revision for admission today itself.

3. This revision under Section 115 C.P.C. has arisen from order dated 26.11.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad rejecting application of plaintiffs-revisionists finding that he has failed to satisfy requirement of proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C..

4. It is contended that in agreement for sale, there was mention that property is under loan in the Bank and seller shall execute sale deed after discharging the loan amount but that was not done. However, in the plaint neither the Bank was made party nor any relief was sought against Bank with respect to original deed of property in dispute. The suit was instituted in 2004. An amendment application has been preferred on 8.11.2010 wherein learned counsel for the applicant could not show as to why amendment sought could not have been brought on record at the time of filing of the suit itself.

5. It is no doubt true that initially, amendment application used to be allowed with due indulgence granted liberally except of a few exceptions like introduction of a new cause of action, brining a time barred cause, change of nature of the suit etc. This is evident from a recent decision. Construing a matter prior to 2002, in Lakha Ram Sharma Vs. Balar Marketing Private Limited, (2008) 17 SCC 671 , the Court held that amendment of pleadings at any stage is permissible and should be allowed liberally subject to certain inbuilt restriction like where it changes the nature of proceedings or may revive a time barred relief or result in an irreparable loss or prejudice to other side.

6. Time and again, Apex court had given a very wide scope to amendment of pleadings. However, there is an intervention of Legislature with an object for preventing dilatory tactics to delay disposal of cases. In that view of the matter, first intervention came by virtue of C.P.C. Amendment Act, 1999 whereby, in Order 6, Rules 17 and 18 were omitted. However, this complete omission of Rules 17 and 18 did not found favour with litigating people and realizing their hardship, Legislature again intervened vide Amendment Act, 2002 whereby Rule 17 Order 6, C.P.C. was incorporated but with a restricted scope. A proviso was added therein. Order 6 Rule 17 came to be inserted by Amendment Act, 2002 reads as under:

"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 in 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"

(emphasis added)

7. A bare perusal of above Rule 17 would show that an amendment is permissible by Court at any stage of proceedings, of course, in such manner and in such terms as the Court may find just, but, such an amendment is required to be necessary for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties. It gives very wide power to Court for allowing amendment but the proviso added therein restricts such wide power of the Court, simultaneously, by observing that no application for amendment shall be allowed after Trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before commencement of Trial.

8. Now there is an embargo on an application for amendment to be allowed once the Trial has commenced. The embargo is complete. The only scope, thereafter is that the Court must