Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice CT Ravikumar allowed the amendment as it was necessary for determining the controversy between the parties.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. 

What was the Background of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) Case? 

• The Appellant and the Respondent are siblings and are children of Smt. Katoribai. 
• The dispute pertains to the suit property which was purchased by way of a registered sale deed. 
• On 14th January, 2013 Smt. Katoribai executed a will and bequeathed the property to the defendant. Smt. Katoribai subsequently passed away. 
• The plaintiff (Smt. Suman Agarwal) filed a suit claiming 1/5th share in the suit property. 
• The defendant filed a written statement praying the suit be dismissed in view of the Will executed by Smt. Katoribai. 
• The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of her plaint to add a list of movable properties in the property sought to be partitioned as part of the suit, as also questioned the genuineness of the Will.  
• The Trial Court rejected the application for amendment of pleadings. 
• Aggrieved by the above a writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) in the High Court. 
• The High Court allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 
• Hence, the appeal was presented before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The question that the Court had to determine in this case was whether the High Court committed an error in not allowing the application seeking leave to amend the pleadings. 
• The Court observed that by way of amendment the party seeks to question the validity of the Will on the basis of which the, the defendant sought to have the suit dismissed, while also expanding the scope of adjudication of the suit to i9nclude the movable property. 
• Thus, the Court held that there are two issues that need to be proved:  
  • determination of the genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in determining the issues inter se the parties; 
  • given the finding of the court below that the application was presented post the commencement of the trial, it could not have been, despite due diligence, presented prior to such commencement. 
• The Court held that in the present facts the two issues do not stand on the same footing and the first issue will necessarily have to weigh over the second. 
• On the issue of delay in filing the application for amendment the Court held that delay cannot decide the fate of the suit in all the cases. 
  • If the unexplained delay is taken into consideration the question of will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. 
• Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, the Court allowed the amendment of the pleadings. 
• Hence, the application for amendment of pleadings was allowed.

What is Amendment of Pleading?

• About Pleading:  
  • According to Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC, "Pleading", shall mean a plaint or written statement, which includes all the details required by a party to comprehend the contentions of the other party. 
• About Amendment of Pleading:  
  • An amendment of pleading under CPC can be performed under Order VI Rule 17. 
  • Order VI Rule 17 main provision provides that 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. 
    • The proviso added in this provision provides 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. 
• Three Important Facts About Amendment of Pleadings: 
  • Amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage. 
  • Amendment must be necessary for determining the “real question of controversy” between the parties. 
  • if such amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the same come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before the point of time, when it was actually brought. 
• Object 
  • The object of this rule is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of suits. 
  • In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Ors. (2005), the Court held that the object of adding the proviso is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial.

What are the Principles Guiding Amendment of Pleadings? 

• The principles regarding the Amendment of Pleadings were laid by the Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr (2022). The principles have been enunciated below: 
• It is a settled rule that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting the leave to amend the pleadings. However, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on the power. 
• 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. 
• In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. 
• The amendments should be disallowed if: 
  • 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. 
  • The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 
  • The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit 
  • The prayer for amendment is malafide 
  • By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. 
• Some general principles to be kept in mind are 
  • The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs 
  • Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. 
  • The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

What are the Landmark Cases on Amendment of Pleadings? 

• Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanswamy and Sons (2009) 
  • The Supreme Court laid down basic principles allowing or rejecting application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC: 
    • Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? 
    • Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or malafide? 
    • The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; 
    • Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; 
    • Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and 
    • 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. 
• Usha Balasaheb Swami and Ors v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors. (2006) 
  • A prayer for amendment of plaint and written statement stand on different footing. 
  • The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement.