Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of The Sinha Development Trust and Another v. State of UP and 15 Others has held that Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of amendment. 

What was the Background of the Sinha Development Trust and Another v. State of UP and 15 Others Case? 

• In the present case, the dispute was related to the transfer of land in the name of trust and not in the name of the private person. 
• The petitioner presented a formal amendment application in the final stage to transfer the property in the name of the trust and not in the individual’s name. 
• The application was rejected by the Trial Court at the final stage on the grounds that it was filed at a very late stage. 
• The petitioner challenged the order of the Trial Court before the Allahabad High Court. 
• The petitioner argued that the amendment of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC did not apply on the cases filed before the amendment, 2000 by referring to the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council (2007). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council (2007) held that the amendment of 2000 of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC shall not be applicable to the cases pending before the amendment. 
• Based on the above judgement the Allahabad High Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the petitioner to make the necessary amendments to the plaint. 

What is Order VI Rule 17 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order VI of CPC deals with pleading in general. 
• Pleading shall mean plaint or written statement.

Pleadings

• Pleadings are statements in writing delivered by each party alternately to his opponent, stating his contentions at the trial, giving all such details as his opponent needs to know to prepare his case in answer. 
• It is an essential requirement of pleading that material fact and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings.

Rule 17:

• This rule deals with the amendment of pleadings. 
• It states 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. 
• 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 object of Rule 17 is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Amendment of Rule 17: 

• An amendment of pleading under CPC can be performed under Order VI Rule 17.
• The first part of the rule gives discretionary power to the court by stating it ‘may’ allow an application for amendment to determine the real question in the dispute.
• The second part makes it mandatory for the court to allow the application if it finds that the parties could not have raised the issue despite due diligence before the trial began.
• The second part as proviso was added to Order VI Rule 17 was added in year 2002.

What are the Cases Based on Applicability of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC?

• Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Ors. (2005):
  • The Supreme Court has held that the object of adding the proviso is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial.
• Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009):
  • The Supreme Court laid down the following basic principles for allowing or rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17:
    • 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.
    • Generally, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the application date.
• Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors (2023): 
  • Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that as per the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC only pleadings proposed should be considered in the amendment application and not the merits of the proposed amendment.
• Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Swastik Associates & Ors. (2023): 
  • The Court observed that “It cannot be said that the rigors introduced in procedural law i.e., the CPC as per the Commercial Courts Act can be ignored because Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has not been amended in the context of commercial suits”.
  • The Court further noted that “An application, which in pith and substance is an application relatable to Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, can masquerade as an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC”.