Amendment in pleadings

Amendment in pleadings can be allowed at any stage of proceedings, even by first or second appellate court, or in revision, or in appeal before the Supreme Court

However, amendment cannot be allowed if it changes the complexion of the suit or is sought with mala fide object of overcoming the contradictions.

This is manifest not only from the use of word "may" but also "in such manner and on such terms as may be just" in that provision

Nonetheless, guideline has been provided by the legislature to the effect that only such amendments to the pleadings are to be allowed which are necessary for determining real questions in controversy between the parties.

Court is empowered to allow a party to amend their pleadings, particularly where such an amendment is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy between the parties and the power can be exercised by the court, at any time, during the pendency of such proceedings and even after the passage of the decree at the appellate stage or at the stage of revision in the highest Court

While it is true that the courts are empowered under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C. to permit amendment "at any stage of the proceeding" this discretion is to be exercised with caution and only in furtherance of justice

Although the rule ibid is to be construed liberally, certain guardrails must be strictly observed

An amendment cannot be allowed if it alters the nature of the suit, seeks to withdraw admissions previously made, is tainted with mala fide intent, causes prejudice to the opposite party, or is designed to overcome evidentiary contradictions or prior judicial determinations

Courts must be vigilant in evaluating the motive behind the request, the stage at which it is brought and its impact on the rights of the opposite party

Where an amendment is sought after an inordinate delay, without adequate explanation, the delay itself, though not conclusive, becomes a weighty factor

An amendment of such a nature, introduced after the close of pleadings and during the trial phase, is likely to prejudice the opposing party by shifting the nature or focus of the controversy

An amendment should not be allowed where it alters the litigation landscape in a way that disadvantages the opposing party who relied upon the original pleading in the conduct of their case.

A party is not permitted to go beyond its pleadings and cannot lead or rely upon evidence that is inconsistent with what has been pleaded; even if such evidence is brought on record, it must be ignored

In this context, any belated amendment that introduces a new factual assertion must be examined with heightened scrutiny

The timing of the amendment request must, therefore, be viewed not in isolation, but in the context of its potential to disturb the procedural fairness and substantive rights of the opposing party.

If amendment is necessary for the purpose of the real question in the controversy, it becomes obligatory on the Court to allow amendment

A proposed necessary amendment shall not change the nature of the suit so as to introduce a new cause of action

It is natural that an amendment tends to cease inconvenience to the opposite party, hence it might be allowed on just and appropriate costs to the opposite party

The nature of the suit not being changed by an amendment, the question of limitation would emerge as of form rather than of substance

Amendment, allowed or refused, goes to the roots of a party's case, as such, highly likely to imperil the party's genuine case.

Neither scope of suit could be extended nor any amendment could be a logical solution as amendment would change complexion of suit altogether

Initially suit was against a show cause, which too was not maintainable and fresh cause of dismissal was different altogether

Complexion of suit could not be changed

Against any adverse order such as dismissal plaintiff could avail statutory remedy under service regulations

Nothing was left in the suit to adjudicate; show-cause had served its purpose; claim of damages was immature and without cause which was raised to avail pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby an application of the respondent seeking amendment in her suit in the title, body and likewise in the prayer clause by seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula instead of dissolution on the basis of cruelty was allowed

Validity

Family Court, by allowing the amendment, had not exceeded its jurisdiction and the order was passed in the best interest of both the parties to avoid another round of litigation between themselves

Trial Court had not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners, in the presence of an agreement to sell between respondent and vendor, purchased the suit property, as such, they were arrayed as defendants in the suit for specific performance

Petitioners filed application for rejection of plaint whereas respondent filed application for amendment of plaint to incorporate the plea for cancellation of transfer letters

Trial Court accepted the application of respondent whereas dismissed that of petitioners

Validity

Petitioners, in view of S.27 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, had to show that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice of earlier contract and once it was done, the onus would be on the respondent that such was not the case

Plea of respondent could only succeed if the petitioners failed to prove that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice

Factum of transfer of property having come to light after filing the suit, therefore, plaint was rightly allowed to be amended

No jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court

Revision petition was dismissed.

Power under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. was discretionary and be used judicially on consideration of special circumstances of each case and necessary conditions for the same were firstly that amendments do not cause injustice to other side; and secondly that such amendment was necessary for determination of real question in controversy

No party could be allowed to introduce a new cause of action by way of amendment and a court ordinarily should allow an amendment unless it was found that the applicant was acting mala fide or injustice or injury was likely to cause to the opposite party which could not be compensated by cost

Where due to subsequent events original relief sought became inappropriate for deciding a controversy, amendments could be allowed to shorten litigation

Court could allow to cure defective pleadings so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions such as payment of additional court fee or costs of other side were complied with except when there was lapse of time or new cause of action was created

Where Court lacked inherent jurisdiction over a subject-matter, then it could not allow an amendment in pleadings to bring a suit within its jurisdiction and introduction of inconsistent or contradictory allegations could not be allowed

Delay by itself, could not be adequate reason for refusing an amendment under O. VI, R. 17, CPC.

Where legislature had not given the right of appeal or revision against the orders impugned through the writ petition, exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution as an appellate jurisdiction would be to circumvent the intention of the legislature

No appeal was provided against an order for permission to amend the plaint and revisional jurisdiction had already been availed and, no other remedy under the law was available

Remedy of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was not synonymous to appeal, review or revisional jurisdiction

Petitioner was bound to show some jurisdictional defect committed by the courts below for invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Petitioner could not point out either any jurisdictional defect, perversity in the orders passed by the courts below or establish any exceptional circumstances for exercising constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition, having no force, was dismissed in limine.

Order VI, R. 17, C.P.C. only pertained to amendments in pleadings by either party in such a manner and on such terms which were equitable and just and which were necessary in determining real controversy between parties

Under the garb of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. no amendment in "judgment", "decree" or "order" could be made

Adjudicating authority, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, could not change its determination after signing of a judgment or order or decree as then the doctrine of functus officio becomes applicable.

Order VI, R. 17, C.P.C. only pertained to amendments in pleadings by either party in such a manner and on such terms which were equitable and just and which were necessary in determining real controversy between parties

Under the garb of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. no amendment in "judgment" ,"decree" or "order" could be made

Adjudicating authority, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, could not change its determination after signing of a judgment or order or decree as then the doctrine of functus officio becomes applicable.

Alternate and inconsistent pleas could be taken but contradictory and mutually destructive pleas could not be raised through amendment in the pleadings

Defendant through proposed amendment had sought elaboration of facts in detail which was not destructive or contradictory to the plea already raised and even same was not inconsistent or alternate plea

Courts below had failed to appreciate the facts in true perspective while passing the impugned orders

Mere delay in filing such application was not a good ground for refusal of the same

No amendment was to be allowed which might introduce a new and changed case/claim

Proposed amendment in the pleadings was not to change the nature, complexion and cause of action of the suit

Parties could not lead evidence beyond their pleadings and if provisions of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. were not construed and exercised liberally, it would jeopardize the case of the parties

Proposed amendment, in the present case, did not change the complexion and nature of written statement

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and application for amendment filed by the defendant was accepted

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Court was vested with power to allow or decline amendments in pleadings at its discretion and allow amendments only if same did not change substance or nature of a suit and such discretion did not bind a court to allow amendments in all cases where an application for the same was filed.

Such discretion was to be exercised liberally to promote the ends of justice and to determine the real controversy in-between the contesting parties

While submitting written statement, besides replying to the amended paragraphs of plaint, the defendant could take pleas which were available to him, under the law

Court, however, would not authorize the defendant to resile from the admission made in the earlier written statement or add a new or inconsistent case, as already pleaded in earlier written statement

Admission made by a party to the lis in the pleadings could not be revoked without express permission of the court.

Plaintiff sought amendment in plaint by filing an application under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. regarding the names of his predecessor

Trial Court accepted said application but Revisional Court reversed the same

Contention of plaintiff was that only correction of name had been sought and nature of suit would remain the same

Held, that amendment in pleadings could be sought at any stage of proceedings and there was no bar under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. to allow amendment

Only test was that by allowing the proposed amendment, nature of suit would not be changed

Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to substitute findings of Trial Court

Findings of Revisional Court being not sustainable under the law were set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. a court enjoyed vast discretionary powers to allow amendments in a plaint at any stage of the proceedings if the court was of the opinion that the same were just and necessary for final disposal of a case

Court, however, was bound to exercise such discretion in accordance with settled judicial principles, and while allowing a request for amendment in plaint, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, and it had to be seen whether an amendment was necessary for accurate determination of the dispute between the parties and while allowing an amendment in the plaint, the defendants' right should also be kept in view and no amendment should be allowed, which aimed to change the complexion of the case altogether or introduce a new case based on a new cause of action

Amendment in plaint could be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from cause of action originally incorporated in plaint or to add additional relief available to a plaintiff even before the higher courts of jurisdiction, including the High Courts and the Supreme Court and furthermore, the same could also be allowed so as to base a plaint on a different title

Rights accrued in favour of one party could not be allowed to be snatched away by allowing amendment in a causal manner, and an amendment to a plaint cannot be allowed if it was not moved in good faith, likely to result in injustice or if the period of limitation had run since the accrual of the actual cause of action.

Amendment should only be allowed in such manner and on such terms as might be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Plaintiff company sought amendment in its plaint, after framing of issues, which application was disallowed by Trial Court

Validity

Plaintiff company was required to indicate in clear terms as to at which part of pleadings, it intended to add or delete some version and in case of addition, the proposed addition must be provided in unequivocal terms

Proposed amendment was not to be vague or evasive

Application moved by plaintiff company was lacking completely in such regard

Nowhere in the application any proposed amendment in clear terms had been provided and similarly it was nowhere mentioned as to at which part of already filed plaint, the proposed amendment was to be added or altered

Plaintiff failed to make out a case for amendment in already filed plaint and also failed to point out as to how financial statements of defendant society would be relevant with regard to issues involved in the suit, seeking declaration as to the title of property and recovery of damages

Order passed by Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to warrant interference by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were legal heirs of the original defendant who had denied the execution of alleged sale agreement and instead contended that he had sold the suit property vide another sale-deed in favour of the respondent

Petitioners/defendants sought to amend pleadings and admitted to the execution of the sale-deed denied by their father

Trial Court declined application of defendants/petitioners for amendment in pleadings

Validity

Original defendant, the deceased father of the present defendants, had categorically denied the execution of the agreement to sell in his written statement, and admitted an agreement to sell in favour of another person (respondent), in whose favour a valuable right accrued on basis of the written statement of the deceased

Petitioners being legal representatives could not be permitted to get rid of the admission already made by their father in his written statement in favour of the respondent

Provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. were to be construed liberally however, petitioners/new defendants would not be allowed to abuse law of procedure to favour plaintiff by resiling from the admission made by their deceased father in earlier written statement and putting up a new and inconsistent defence

Admission made by a party in the pleadings could not be revoked without permission of the court

Since a valuable right had been created in favour of the respondent on basis of the admission of the deceased, therefore proposed amendment based on ulterior motives could not be allowed

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.