Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be granted liberally if necessary for determining the real controversy and does not change the nature of the suit or cause of action, even at a belated stage, to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Mahabubabad (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in I.A.Nos.290 of 2023 in O.S.No.74 of 2011, whereby the Trial Court partly dismissed the petitioners’ application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint, in so far as it relates to the proposed addition of Para 2A in the plaint and Para 2A in the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The Petitioners/Plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the said property. During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by correcting the description of the defendant No.1 from District Collector, Warangal to District Collector, Mahabubabad and by adding Para 2A in the plaint and Para 2A in the suit schedule property so as to incorporate certain particulars and documents relating to the property and the alleged acts of the defendants. The said amendment was sought on the ground that it was necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, the Trial Court partly allowed the application only to the extent of amendment in the cause title and rejected the remaining amendments, which has led to the filing of the present proceedings. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred the petition Civil Revision Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the Trial Court permitted amendment of the cause title by substituting the 1st Respondent as the District Collector, Mahabubabad in place of District Collector, Warangal, it arbitrarily rejected the proposed amendment relating to addition of Para 2A in the plaint and Para 2A in the suit schedule property without assigning any reasons.

5. It is contended that the proposed amendment only sought to incorporate additional particulars relating to the property and the supporting documents, which have already been marked during the course of trial. Therefore, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment was essential for proper adjudication of the dispute. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment application in its entirety, as the proposed amendment was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and for effective adjudication of the suit.

6. The rejection of the amendment merely on the ground of delay is contrary to the settled