Whether Pleadings (Plaint And Written Statement) Can Be Amended (Order 6 Rule 17) After Commencement Of Trial Or Even At An Appeallate Stage? Detailed Discussions With Landmark Judgments

Whether Pleadings (Plaint And Written Statement) Can Be Amended (Order 6 Rule 17) After Commencement Of Trial Or Even At An Appeallate Stage? Detailed Discussions With Landmark Judgments


Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings . Pleadings are the case of the Plaintiff or the Defendant in Plaint And Written statement respectively. An amendment can be by way of altering something, modifying something or deleting something.

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as under,

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 questions in controversy between the parties:

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.

Above provisions makes it ample clear that Order 6 Rule 17 commences with the words "the court may at any stage of the proceedings" and thereafter, goes on to confer a power to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings, where it appears to the court that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. 


The proviso, by use of the expression "Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced" appears to place an embargo on the power of a court to allow amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced. If the proviso were to end with this expression, it could justifiably be argued that pleadings cannot be amended after the commencement of a trial. 

The proviso, however, qualifies the prohibitory expression by the use of the words "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" thereby clarifying that the embargo is not absolute and the court, may if circumstances so permit, allow an amendment after the commencement of the trial. 



Due Diligence :- "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means  such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the  conduct of his own affairs. It is clear that unless the party  takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a  petition after the commencement of trial.”


Commencement of Trial :- The moment the first witness to be examined in the case entered the witness box, and the Court started recording the evidence, the trial of the suit commenced.  

However, with the introduction of process of filing of affidavits in lieu of chief-examination, the occasion for the Court to apply its mind at the stage of chief-examination would arise only when the documents mentioned in the affidavit are taken on record, after satisfying itself as to admissibility and relevance. 

The safest approach seems to be that the trial of the suit can be said to have commenced when the trial Court makes the chief-examination of the first witness in the suit presented in the form of an affidavit, as part of record, after verification of its content, and on an examination of the documents mentioned therein from the point of view of admissibility, and when such witness is available for cross-examination by the opposite party.


In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR 2005 SC 3353.
Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal speaking for the Bench observed as under :-

" Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By amendment Act, 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

" The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision."

Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments :-

In Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 the Supreme Court on critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases formulates certain basic principles which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. They are 

(1)  Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case?

(2)  Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide?

(3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) Refusing amendment would 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.



Costs:-

The Courts have consistently laid down that for unnecessary delay and inconvenience, the opposite party must be compensated with costs. The imposition of costs is an important judicial exercise particularly when the courts deal with the cases of amendment. The costs cannot and should not be imposed arbitrarily. 

In Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 the Supreme Court formulates the following parameters that must be taken into consideration while imposing the costs. These factors are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. They are 

(i) At what stage the amendment was sought?

(ii) While imposing the costs, it should be taken into consideration whether the amendment has been sought at a pre-trial or post-trial stage;

(iii)The financial benefit derived by one party at the cost of other party should be properly calculated in terms of money and the costs be awarded accordingly.

(iv) The imposition of costs should not be symbolic but realistic;

(v) The delay and inconvenience caused to the opposite side must be clearly evaluated in terms of additional and extra court hearings compelling the opposite party to bear the extra costs.

(vi) In case of appeal to higher courts, the victim of amendment is compelled to bear considerable additional costs.

All these aspects must be carefully taken into consideration while awarding the costs.



Cases where amendment of pleadings (plaint and written statement) was allowed after the commencement of trial :-

The Apex Court in Peethani Suryanarayana V. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore AIR 2009 SC 2141 held that Court holds power to allow such amendment, provided the application is bonafide and does not cause injustice to either side and does not affect the rights already accrued to the other side. 
It was on facts in the suit for partition amendment of plaint saying some typographical error is there as to subject matter that requires correction when it causes no prejudice to the so called pendentelite purchasers of suit land by correction of survey Nos.462 and 463 from what plaint originally described of Survey No.165, when that Survey No.165 is reassigned as 463 and the mentioning is to correct the typographical mistake.

The court concludes that the amendment sought is for the purpose of bringing to the record the real question in controversy between the parties and refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complications at the stage of execution in the event of the appellant-plaintiff succeed in the suit.

Recently, in  J.Yadagiri Reddy and others vs. J.Hemalatha and others 2016 (3) ALT 211, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad observed that even in cases where an application for amendment is filed after commencement of trial, the amendment should be allowed if the amendment sought does not require any evidence to be led specifically or additionally by either of the parties to decide the rights of the parties as the object of the Court should be not to punish a party for any mistake committed in filling the plaint initially. 

In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu AIR 2002 SC 3369, Application for amendment made 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit to convert through amendment a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was allowed holding, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment and if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit by allowing the amendment that would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings.



In Mahila Ramkali Devi And Ors vs Nandram Thr. Lrs.& Ors (2015) 13 SCC 132  an  amendment was allowed after 40 years from the date of institution of the suit. The issue involved in the said case was that as per the law prevailing at the time when the suit was instituted, the right of a land-owner (bhumiswami) to transfer his land by way of a will was not recognized by law when the land was transferred by way of will dated 21.01.1961 and under the said background, the plaintiff had prayed for amendment to add the name of minor sons and for alternative relief of succession de- hors the will, which was ultimately allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

In P.Durga Reddy and another v. B.Yadi Reddy, 2016 (2) ALT 63, It was observed that delay itself is not a ground to reject the amendment when it can be allowed on other considerations. Delay can be compensated by costs in such cases.

Amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial has also been allowed in the following cases :-

Davinder Singh vs Surjit Malhotra 126 (2006) DLT 102

Harish Chander vs Bharti Bhardwaj 118 (2005) DLT 112

State of AP v. Pioneer Builders, 2007 (1) ALT 43 (SC)

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors (2006) 4 SCC 385

Veluri Raja Rajeswari v. Veluri Santhansagar Reddy, 2014 (2) ALT 526. 

Sarabjit Kaur vs Joginder Singh Bamra 2016(1) PLR 719

Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374

In Sajjan Kumar vs. Ram Kishan [2005 (13) SCC 89] Three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court allowed amendment even at the stage of execution. 



Amendment of pleadings at an appellate stage:-

In Ishwardas V. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 551 while considering a case of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the written statement at an appellate stage, the Apex Court held as under:- “There is no impediment or bar against an appellate court permitting amendment of pleadings. So as to enable a party to raise a new plea, all that is necessary is that the appellate court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. 

" Naturally, one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted, is the delay in making the application, and if amendment is made at appellate stage, the reason why it was not sought in the trial court." 

" If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. But, there is no prohibition against an appellate court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court.”

In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur V. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs., 2008 AIR SCW 3159, the Court held that amendment of pleadings at an appellate stage is permissible if it does not cause injustice to other party and is necessary to determine the question in contravention.

In Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 674, the Supreme Court held that amendment can be allowed even at an appellate stage in a case where the law of limitation is not involved and the facts and circumstances of the particular case so demand, in order to do justice to the parties. 

The case involved therein was under the provisions of Sections 166, 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as the Act does not provide for any limitation with respect to filing the claim petition, the amendment at the appellate stage was allowed. A right accrued in favour of a party by lapse of time cannot be permitted to be taken away by amendment. 

Amendment can also be allowed at the appellate stage. Introduction of an entirely new case, displacing admissions by a party is not permissible.  (See: Pirgonda Hongonda Patil V. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil & Ors., AIR 1957 SC 363; Nanduri Yogananda Laxminarsimhachari & Ors. V. Sri Agasthe Swarswamivaru, AIR 1960 SC 622; M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. V. M/s Ladha Ram & Co., AIR 1977 SC 680; Ishwardas V. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 551; and Mulk Raj Batra V. District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1982 SC 24)

In Kankarathanammal V. V.S. Longanatha Mudaliar & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 271; and M/s. Ganesh Trading Company V. Mauji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484, it was held that amendment Application can be moved at any stage of the proceedings, even at the appellate stage.



However in the following cases amendment of pleadings was not allowed after Commencement of trial

In Vidyabai & Ors. V. Padmalatha & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 409, the Apex Court held that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 are caused in mandatory form. Therefore, the Court may not allow the application for amendment after commencement of the trial. (See also: Ashutosh Chaturvedi V. Prano Devi, (2008) 15 SCC 610; and South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. V. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1177).

The Apex Court in Chandra Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2005) 6 SCC 344, held that in a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the lane in the suit property, defendant seeking amendment of written statement after closure of evidence of both sides to file partition agreement that was not brought in the course of evidence and the same when allowed by amendment to bring in evidence tantamounts to retracting what was pleaded in the written statement and said amendment cannot be allowed for lack of due diligence, in saying that while exercise of discretion care should be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character are not inflicted upon the opposite party under pretence of allowing amendment. It was also held that an amendment which appears clearly to be an afterthought to be disallowed. 
(See also - S.Rajendran vs K.Kanniah & others (2010) 3 MLJ 215 ; J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors (2012) 2 SCC 300)

Amendment application filed at an unduly delayed stage :-

In Jayanti Roy V. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 2394, the Supreme Court held that amendment application should be moved at a proper stage. Application filed at an unduly delayed stage should normally be rejected.

If the plaintiff wants to add certain facts, which the plaintiff had not chosen to mention in the original plaint and the same were in his knowledge when the plaint was instituted it can be done. However, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to make fresh allegation of facts by way of amendment at a belated stage. amendment of pleadings at a belated stage is not permissible as it could not be permissible by the provisions contained in the proviso to Order 6  Rule 17.

(See: Chaturvedi V. Prano Devi & Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 3352, Gopal Krishanamurthi V. Shreedhara Rao, AIR 1950 Mad. 32; and Gauri Shankar V. M/s Hindustan Trust (Pvt) Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 2091)



However in Pankaja & Anr. V. Yellappa (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4102, the Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that amendment should not be allowed at a belated stage in a particular case. Even if amendment sought is barred by limitation, if the Court after examining the facts and circumstances of the case comes to the conclusion that amendment serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the amendment should be allowed. (Also see:- Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. V. K.K. Modi & Ors. , AIR 2006 SC 1647).

Thus amendment of pleadings from the above is basically for the purpose of bringing about final adjudication in a lis and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and shorten litigation and where it is necessary to determine the real controversy. It is in the interest of justice that a suit shall be decided on all points of controversy and accordingly, it is needed that the party shall be allowed to alter or amend their pleadings during the pendency of the suit. 

According to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court may allow the amendment at any stage of the proceedings and for such purpose it may impose conditions i.e. in the form of cost or any other condition. 

The Court has been given discretion in this regard and the mandatory guidelines upon the Court as well as upon the party seeking amendment is that they shall make only such amendments which are necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties to the suit. 

At the same time, the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 puts a mandate upon the Court not to allow such amendment after the trail has begun (i.e. if issues have been settled), if its finds that the party could have raised the pleadings by due diligence at an earlier point of time. 

However, the Proviso need not be given a very rigid effect in all cases as the same is subject to the discretion of the Court, for procedural law does not come in the way to determine real matters in controversy so to permit for rendering substantial justice between parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and life to litigation and of anticipatory future complications. 

The main object of the legislation is to enable the Court to allow amendment at any stage and thereby delay itself is not a ground to refuse, but for not to permit where there is by such amendment changes cause of action or tantamounts to withdrawal clear admissions unexplained or amendment plea to introduce is mutually destructive or where claim is time barred and allowing it causes grave prejudice and injustice to rights accrued to other side than by refusal.





Share:

Multiple Khoj

Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Labels

Like Our Facebook Page

Recent Posts