Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment Applications Not To Be Rejected Merely For Delay : Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines

The Supreme Court mere delay would not be a ground for rejecting the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure."The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement", the court observed.The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala also laid down guidelines for considering applications seeking amendment of plaint. It observed that liberal approach has to adopted while considering such amendment applications. The court was considering an appeal that arose from a suit filed in 1986 by plaintiffs for the specific performance of contract based on an agreement dated 08.06.1979. The Bombay High Court, in the impugned order, had allowed the application filed by plaintiffs permitted them to amend the plaint. The suit originally claimed the damages to the tune of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- [Rs. One Crore & One Lakh only] in the alternative was prayed for. By way of amendment the damages prayed for is to the tune of Rs. 4,00,01,00,000/- [Rs. Four Hundred Crore & One Lakh only].While dismissing the appeal, the court laid down the following guidelines: All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. Case detailsLife Insurance Corporation vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 | CA 5909 OF 2022 | 1 September 2022 | Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB PardiwalaHeadnotesCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order II Rule 2 - Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit - It applies only for a subsequent suit. (Para 49-50, 70)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ;...

Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment Applications Not To Be Rejected Merely For Delay : Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok KM

Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment Applications Not To Be Rejected Merely For Delay : Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers