Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed liberally if they are necessary for just adjudication, do not alter the fundamental nature of the suit, and do not cause substantial prejudice to the opposite party, particularly before the commencement of evidence.

ORDER

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by petitioner-plaintiff, challenging order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabalgarh, District Morena (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in RCSA No. 27 of 2023. In impugned order, Trial Court allowed application filed by respondents- defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for amendment of their written statement.

The factual matrix in narrow compass is that petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction with respect to land bearing Survey No. 416/5, area 1750 sq. ft., situated at Mouza Kutdhan, Tehsil Sabalgarh, District Morena (disputed property). Petitioner challenged validity of sale deeds executed on 08.09.2021, 18.08.2022, and 18.08.2022, and sought their cancellation. Petitioner claims disputed property was originally purchased by his father, Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Mishra, through registered sale deed dated 06.11.1989.

Defendants denied claims and filed their written statements. Petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint on 20.02.2024, which was allowed by this Court in previous Miscellaneous Petition on 28.01.2025. Thereafter, defendants sought consequential amendment, which was allowed by Trial Court. On 23.07.2025, defendants filed another application seeking further amendments to their written statement, which was allowed by Trial Court on 31.07.2025. This led to filing of present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and against settled principles of law. Petitioner specifically challenged sale deeds executed on 08.09.2021 and 18.08.2022, and amendment sought by defendants would materially alter nature of suit. Defendants had already amended their written statement and should not be permitted to raise new pleas at this stage, particularly after commencement of trial. Trial had already commenced, issues had been framed, and evidence was yet to be recorded. Proposed amendment is contradictory to defendants’ earlier statements and should not be allowed at this late stage.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-defendant No.2 submits that defendants sought amendment in good faith to clarify their position regarding valuation of disputed property and issue of court fees, which were not raised earlier. Amendment does not change nature of suit but only seeks to align pleadings with actual facts. Moreover, petitioner’s evidence has not yet commenced, and no prejudice will be caused to petitioner by allowing amendment. Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion in allowing amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Therefore, respondent prays for dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition. Learned Trial Court, in its impugned order, observed that amendment sought does not change nature of suit or prejudice petitioner’s case. Trial Court further noted that issues had already been framed, but evidence had not yet commenced, and defendants had not caused any undue delay in seeking amendment. Trial Court held that amendment would not affect rights of plaintiff and was necessary for complete and effective adjudication of suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Upon considering submissions of both parties and reviewing relevant facts and circumstances, it is clear that Trial Court's decision to allow amendment is legally sound. Scope of amendment is limited to clarifying defendants' position regarding valuation of disputed property and addressing issue of court fees. Petitioner's contention that amendment materially alters nature of suit does not hold merit, as amendment does not introduce new cause of action or defense but seeks to refine and adjust existing pleadings. It is well-established that when exercising discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, Court should permit amendments that are necessary f