29/03/2020
Change
Change is inevitable, however detested the most. There is always a resistance, correctly or otherwise, when it comes to change. Our legal drafts are also often in such dilemma. Our laws, in fact, in some cases mandate that there can be no change after a certain point.
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Rule 17: Amendment of pleadings:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties:
The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
It has been provided that when a Suit (Plaint) has been filed and/or Written Statement thereto is filed, ordinarily a change an amendment can be permitted to meet the ends of justice. However with the introduction of the proviso thereto (with effect from 1st July 2002), being
"Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
The commencement of the trial begins when the witness has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and the witness has started his deposition and the affidavit-in-lieu of evidence has been proved and is taken on record along with the documents. Rajendrakumar Bhogilal Shaha Versus Pushpa Damodar Nandurkar [2010(6) MH.L.J.661)]
The Courts in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] held:
"41. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have also carefully perused the pleadings, annexures, various orders passed by the courts below, the High Court and of this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent 1, various dates of hearing with reference to the proceedings taken before the Court has been elaborately spelt out which in our opinion, would show that the appellant is precluded by the proviso to rule in question from seeking relief by asking for amendment of his pleadings.
42. It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002.
43. Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. It is submitted, that after the trial of the case has commenced, no application of pleading shall be allowed unless the above requirement is satisfied. The amended Order 6 Rule 17 was due to the recommendation of the Law Commission since Order (sic Rule) 17, as it existed prior to the amendment, was invoked by parties interested in delaying the trial. That to shorten the litigation and speed up disposal of suits, amendment was made by the amending Act, 1999, deleting Rule 17 from the Code. This evoked much controversy/hesitation all over the country and also leading to boycott of courts and, therefore, by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, provision has been restored by recognising the power of the court to grant amendment, however, with certain limitation which is contained in the new proviso added to the rule. The details furnished below will go to show as to how the facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants were well within their knowledge on their court case, and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants disentitling them to relief."
The Supreme Court therefore upheld the validity of the said proviso.
However in Baldev Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and Another [(2006) 6 SCC 498], wherein it was opined:
"17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.
(It is not an authority for the proposition that the trial would not deemed to have commenced on the date of first hearing. In that case, as noticed hereinbefore, the documents were yet to be filed and, therefore, it was held that the trial did not commence)
In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 385], it is held that the Court should allow amendments that would be necessary to determine the real question of the controversy between the parties but the same indisputably would be subject to the condition that no prejudice is caused to the other side.
Therefore it is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed.
In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84, at para 63: (SCC p.102)
"63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment.
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bonafide or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the order side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."
The above principles make it clear that courts have ample power to allow the application for amendment of the plaint. However, they must be satisfied that the same is required in the interest of justice and for the purpose of determination of real question in controversy between the parties.
In Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S. S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2008(14) SCC 364) originally the suit was filed against the sole defendant and subsequently the second defendant came on record as per the order dated 11.07.2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule lands. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the suit, notices were exchanged between the parties. In their reply dated 18.8.2001 to the plaintiff's notice, it was specifically asserted that the first respondent herein, namely M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is carrying on mining activities in the suit schedule lands.
“the plaintiff did not chose to take steps to get the plaint amended suitably and instead allowed the suit to go on and examined the witnesses on his behalf and cross-examined the witnesses produced by the defendants. Only during the stage of arguments, the plaintiff came up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the pleadings. We have already explained the implication of proviso to Rule 17. Though even after commencement of the trial, parties to the proceeding are entitled to seek amendment, in the light of the factual details such as clear information in the reply notice prior to the filing of the suit and specific plea in the written statement of D-1 which contained details of Government Orders leasing out the suit property in favour of D-2, the action of the plaintiff at the stage of argument cannot be permitted. Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to adhere to the said recourse at the appropriate time. Further it is relevant to point out that in the original suit, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell the suit schedule property and in the petition filed during the course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from the second defendant. It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 but even on merits his claim is liable to be rejected. All these relevant aspects have been duly considered by the High Court and rightly set aside the order dated 10.3.2004 of the Additional District Judge.
8) In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The case law and the interpretation of the Courts is clear.
The first part of the rule makes it abundantly clear that at any stage of the proceedings, parties are free to alter or amend their pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. However, this rule is subject to proviso appended therein. The said rule with proviso again substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2002 makes it clear that after the commencement of the trial, no application for amendment shall be allowed. However, if the parties to the proceedings able to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence could not raise the issue before the commencement of trial and the court satisfies their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial. To put it clear, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso.
However the purpose and object of its proviso is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial, failing which such application for amendment is liable to be rejected.
