Order VI Rule17 CPC | Mere Delay In Seeking Amendment Of Pleadings Not Ground To Reject It: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere delay in making an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not enough by itself to refuse such an amendment, since the delay could be compensated in terms of money.Order 6 Rule 17 CPC authorizes the court to permit a party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma highlighted...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere delay in making an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not enough by itself to refuse such an amendment, since the delay could be compensated in terms of money.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC authorizes the court to permit a party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma highlighted that the purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was to allow either party to alter and amend the pleadings in a manner that was just. It was opined that such amendment had to be allowed if the same was required for proper and effective adjudication of the matter, and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
"It is trite law that the purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 is to be allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication of controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings. Mere delay in making an amendment application itself is not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be compensated in terms of money".
The court referred to Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Ltd. & Ors. wherein Supreme Court had considered the aspect of delay and in order to compensate the petitioner, it had imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the plaintiff/respondent for the alleged delay in filing the application.
For context, the Court was hearing a petition that challenged acceptance of respondent's application under the provision, thereby allowing amendment of the plaint.
A suit was filed against the petitioner by the respondent seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction in relation to the suit property. The respondent claimed to be the rightful owner of the suit property.
On the contrary, the petitioner was contending to be the rightful owner of the suit property based on a sale deed and also the fact that he was in long-standing possession of the suit property.
At the stage of plaintiff evidence, an application was filed by the respondent under the aforementioned provision seeking amendment of their plaint. This application was filed in light of a civil suit's order wherein the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
The respondent submitted that since the order provided that petitioner's possessions over the suit property was unlawful, they were entitled to mesne profits, and the plaint had to be amended accordingly. This application was allowed by the trial court, which was challenged by the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit. Further, the application was also filed at a belated stage.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that while the main relief sought in the suit was of declaration, possession and injunction, the amendment sought was merely ancillary to the relief, that did not change the nature of the suit.
“Trial Court has rightly observed that only on the occasion that the decree is passed, the question of mesne profits would arise for consideration. Further, it is also evident that the amendment sought to be incorporated does not change the nature of the suit; rather, it is purely ancillary in nature to the main relief as the suit remains to be suit for declaration, possession and injunction.”
In relation to the argument of the application being filed at a belated stage, the Court held that the evidence had not yet started, and the trial court had also ordered compensation of Rs. 5000 to the petitioner for the delay.
Hence, while underscoring the purpose of Order 6 Rule 17, as aforementioned, the Court opined that the order of the trial court was well-reasoned and justified.
“Even otherwise, the petitioner-defendant will always be at liberty to controvert the amended pleadings on merits by filing an amended Written Statement during the course of the trial.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201