The court ruled that a liberal approach should be taken towards permitting amendments in pleadings, especially when crucial facts are omitted, and delay alone does not justify rejection if trial has not commenced.

ORDER :

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni, District Sehore in RCSA No.11/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

2. The essential facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in relation to certain immovable property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. In the plaint, the petitioner set out the factual foundation upon which the reliefs were claimed.

3. The respondents/defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and asserting their own claims and defences. The written statement was filed approximately two years prior to the filing of the present amendment application.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, and before commencement of the stage of recording evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment was confined to insertion of certain additional facts in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the plaint, which according to the petitioner were material for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

5. The petitioner asserted that the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action, but is intended only to bring on record certain relevant facts which were inadvertently not incorporated earlier. It was further stated that the omission was bonafide and that the amendment would assist the Court in determining the real controversy.

6. The respondents did not file a written reply to the said application, but opposed the same orally before the trial Court. It was urged on their behalf that the petitioner had full knowledge of the facts at the time of filing of the suit, and that the belated application filed after two years from the date of filing of the written statement was an attempt to delay the proceedings.

7. The trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2024, rejected the amendment application primarily on the ground that it had been filed belatedly and that no sufficient reason had been assigned for not moving such application earlier.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach and has failed to appreciate that the object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to enable the Court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is contended that the trial had not commenced at the time of filing of the amendment application and, therefore, the rigorous of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 are not attracted. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , Vidyabai v. Padmalatha , (2009) 2 SCC 409 and LIC v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 , to contend that delay alone cannot be a ground for rejecting an amendment application, particularly where the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy and does not cause prejudice to the o