Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy, unless they cause serious injustice.

The above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order dated 03.01.2023 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.987 of 2018 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur whereby the application seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed.

2.Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.987 of 2018 pending before the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur, a suit filed for realization of money with respect to a kuri transaction. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the plaint averments, the cause of action for the suit arose on date of receipt of kuri amount by the defendants on 18.05.2013, date of default made by the defendants on 02.12.2013 and date of completion of period of kuri on 02.11.2015. The petitioners would contend that in Ext.P2 written statement they have taken a contention that the suit is barred by limitation since one of the causes of action alleged in the plaint is the date of default in repaying the kuri amount on 02.12.2013. It is further contended that before filing the suit, the respondent/plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the petitioners/defendants and the petitioners had issued a reply lawyer notice also. After expiry of almost three years from the date of filing of the suit, Ext.P3 petition seeking amendment of the plaint was filed as I.A.No.1 of 2021 wherein the respondent has sought for amending the plaint stating that from the reply notice issued by the petitioners, which was issued subsequent to the date of filing of the suit, they came to know that the petitioners had made a payment of Rs.3,000/- on 17.02.2018 and thus it has become necessary for the respondent to make amendments in the contents of plaint with respect to that payment and therein also sought for amending the cause of action for filing of the suit as the date of alleged payment of Rs.3000/- is on 17.02.2018 and the date of reply notice is 09.11.2018. The contention of the petitioners is that by the proposed amendment the respondent has sought to incorporate a date posterior to the date of filing of the plaint as the date of cause of action for the suit and that the proposed amendment seeking change of date of cause of action would totally change the nature of the suit and highlighting the said contentions petitioners have filed Ext.P4 objection. Without considering the contentions in the objection in a proper manner, by Ext.P5 order the amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial court and it is aggrieved by the same that the present original petition has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others , (2007) 5 SCC 602 contended that the prayer for amendment of the plaint and prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on a different footing and that the amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint.

4.I have considered the above contentions.

5.Admittedly the amendment is based on a notice issued by the petitioners themselves, who are the defendants in the suit, whereby the respondent/plaintiff has sought for reducing the amount of Rs.3,000/- deposited on 17.02.2018 and the accrued interest for the said amount from the plaint claim and also for amending the date of cause of action of the suit including the date of payment of Rs.3,000/- on 17.02.2018 and also the date of reply notice dated 09.11.2018. Admittedly the said amendment is sought based on the reply notice which was subsequently received after the suit was filed. It is not in dispute that the power under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers the court to allow alteration in the plaint at any stage of the proceedings when such amendment is found by the court is necessary for determining the real question of controversy between the parties and court should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of the plaint unless serious injustice o