Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 9

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.
In the matter of : Sri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal @ Nirmal Agarwal & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Sri Ram Avatar Agarwal & Ors. - Respondent
CO 30 of 2026
Decided On : 22-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Milindo Paul Mr. Nabankur Paul Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul Ms. Bedashruti Bose Mr. Subham Das Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh Ms. Shiksha Goyal Mr. Aditya Seal
For the Respondent: Mr. Shashi Kanodia Mr. Binod Chakraborty Mr. Rishav Das, Mrs. Aayushi Agarwal Mr. Nigam Mittal

An amendment to pleadings should be refused if it introduces a new cause of action which is time-barred or substantially alters the nature and character of the original suit, as courts must exercise discretionary power by balancing requirements of justice against prejudice caused by a time-barred claim.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 59 and 65 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6 - Amendment of pleadings - Discretionary power of Court - While courts generally adopt a liberal approach regarding amendments, an application must be rejected if the proposed amendment introduces a new, time-barred cause of action that fundamentally alters the nature of the initial suit and prejudices the accrued rights of the opposite party. (Paras 23, 24, 28)

(B) Amendment of Plaint - Nature and character of suit - When an amendment transforms a simple action for recovery of possession into a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and cancellation of multiple instruments, such change alters the sub-stratum of the litigation and is impermissible if the underlying claim was already barred by the efflux of time. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The litigation originated as a civil suit for the recovery of possession of property. Subsequently, during the pendency of the matter, the plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint to include claims for declaration of title and the rescission of several title documents. The trial court allowed the amendment, which the opposing party challenged, arguing that the amendments were time-barred and changed the original character of the suit.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the amendment introduced a new set of facts and cause of action that occurred long after the initial filing, rendering the claim time-barred under the relevant statutes. It held that the original suit, which was simple, was being converted into a complex dispute, thus prejudicing the vested legal position of the defendant.

Issues: The primary questions were whether the amendment of the plaint was permissible under the law of limitation and if the amendment had fundamentally altered the nature and character of the original suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to allow amendments is discretionary but not unlimited; courts must refuse amendments that allow time-barred claims to be introduced, particularly when the amendment changes the entire sub-stratum of the suit and affects rights already secured through the passage of time.

Result: The order permitting the amendment was set aside and the revisional application was allowed.

Table of Content
1. nature of suit changing due to amendment and limitation bars (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. precedent regarding amendments resulting in barred claims (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. applicability of article 65 vs article 59 of limitation act (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. liberal approach to amendment applications in pending suits (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. court discretion and bar on amendments changing suit sub-stratum (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. final order setting aside illegal trial court amendment (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

Judgment :

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.

1. The present revisional application arises out of an order dated 28^th November, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Title Suit no.141 of 2012 by which an application under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) to amend the plaint was allowed.

2. The petitioners have contended that the amendment application was made on 17^th May, 2023 when the suit was filed in 2012 and the knowledge as to the facts on the basis whereof amendment has been sought for is admittedly in the year 2016 when the written statement by the original defendant no.1 in the suit was filed. According to the petitioners, no fresh suit for the relief claimed could lie on the date when the application for amendment was made.

3. That apart and in any event, the amendment seeks to change the nature and character of the suit. The suit was initially for recovery of possession on the allegation that the defendants were trespassers and there was no cloud as to the title of the plaintiff / opposite party. The declaratory relief was, therefore, not claimed in the suit as originally filed. When the written statement was filed, the plaintiff / opposite party sought to amend the plaint to incorporate the declaratory relief as also for setting aside of the title documents.

4. The petitioners also say that the cause of action in the suit as originally framed is different from that which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment which has been allowed. The nature and character of the suit on the amendment being allowed has, therefore, changed.

5. Furthermore, the amendment has taken away the accrued right of the petitioners as against the plaintiff / opposite party inasmuch as a time barred claim has been allowed to be incorporated.

6. The petitioners have cited the following judgments :-

i. (1996) 7 SCC 486 [Radhika Devi vs. Bajrangi Singh & Ors.];

ii. (2010) 14 SCC 596 [Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors.];

iii. (2024) 3 SCC 705 [Basavaraj vs. Indira & Ors.];

iv. AIR 1967 SC 96 [ A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation ].

7. By relying upon paragraph 6 of Radhika Devi (supra), it is contended by the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in a fact situation where a party acquires right by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by the amendment of the pleadings, the amendment in such circumstances would be refused.

8. The petitioners by relying upon paragraphs 32 and 33 of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) (supra) have supported the contention as to alteration of the nature and character of the suit. The ratio laid down in the said judgment says that an amendment which tends to alter the character of the suit as submitted by the petitioners, the amendment, therefore, ought to have been refused.

9. The petitioners then by relying upon paragraph 16 of Basavaraj (supra) submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the application of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in case of an application seeking amendment of pleadings. The petitioners say that the test is that a fresh suit to challenge the action may not be maintainable if the same is sought to be incorporated after expiry of the period of limitation.

10.