The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the statutory right of a plaintiff to seek amendment of pleadings is wide, there are restrictions on seeking amendment after the trial has commenced, and due diligence is required to justify such amendment.

Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has filed application for getting his plaint amended, which has been rejected by Trial Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar vide order dated 02.4.2013 and thereagainst revision has also been filed, which has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar vide order dated 06.9.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that amendment is the statutory unfettered right of plaintiff to seek at any stage and it cannot be denied. He further submitted that amendment can be denied by applying proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. at the stage when evidence commence and not before that.

4. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it is evident that after exchange of pleadings, issues have been framed and dates for recording evidence of parties have also been fixed. The Trial Court's order shows that on 08.8.2008 issues were framed and thereafter the Court fixed date for recording evidence. In fact evidence also commenced and partial evidence of plaintiff has been recorded. This is evident from Revisional Court's order dated 6.9.2013, wherein it has said as under:

^^ekeys esa ijh{k.k vkjEHk gks pqdk gS rFkk oknh dh vksj ls vkaf'kd lk{; izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA^^

English Translation by the Court.

"Trial has commenced in the matter and partial evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff."

5. It is no doubt true that initially, amendment applications, 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 s