Order 6 Rule 17, CPC

Introduction

Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 talks about amendment of pleadings.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC

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.[1]”

?

Pleading basically means the accumulated facts which both parties submit in support of their claims. A plaint or a petition is filed by the person who initiates the court proceedings and in its response the respondent files the written statement. The said rule of CPC allows parties involved in a suit to amend both for the better procurement of justice.

Conditions to avail amendment under the said rule :

Amendments under the said rule can be made at any stage of the trial if they fulfil these two conditions which were discussed in the judgment of Northeastern railway administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan das (para 16).[2]

·?????? If they do not cause any injustice to the opposite party &

·?????? If they are required to determine the actual concern between the parties.

Other factors also need to be kept in consideration by the court such as it can be permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Effect- After a successful amendment, the court shall consider the amended plaint to determine the case and not the unamended part for the same.[3]

Effect of limitation on amending applications :

In LJ Leach & co ltd v. Jardine skinner & co, the apex court held that an application for amending pleadings can be rejected if it is debarred by the Limitation act. But the court also have the discretionary power to allow the application if it finds it necessary for the procurement of justice[4]. This discretionary power of court to allow or dismiss the application was reiterated in several judgments such as South Konkan distilleries.[5]

In Pankaja v. Yellappa[6], the court held that the decision of the court will depend upon the “factual background” of the case. Nonetheless, we can say that in some cases the issue of limitation can create an issue and reject the application but, in some cases, it will not create any difference so that the case can be resolved easily.[7] Hence, it depends upon the discretion of the court, and it is not a right of the parties to amend a plaint.

It is crucial to mention that Order VI Rule 18, CPC gives the court the power to grant permission to amend a plaint. It states that if an application under O6, R17 is allowed then it must be amended within the given time frame. If not, then it cannot be amended thereafter. Time frame for the same will be provided by the court and if no time is specified, then the amendments must be carried out within 14 days from the date the application was allowed. A plaint amended after the period is over shall not be accepted by any court.[8]

Scope of O6 R17, CPC?

There is no straight jacket formula for allowing or rejecting the application of the parties, but court tend to focus on the administration of justice rather than personal interests of the parties. Following are some relevant case laws from which one can understand the scope of the said rule.

In Inderjeet v. Agricultural produce market committee[9], Delhi HC held that the court can, for the better procurement can allow/ dismiss an application for amendments in pleadings.

In Saif-ul-islam v. Roshan lal arora[10], the question came before the court that whether it can allow a second amendment or not? The court didn’t take a hyper- technical decision and concluded that the objective of this power is to seek the real issue of the conflict and allowed the application.

Usha Balasaheb swami v. Kiran Apasso Swami[11] gave another noticeable decision as this case was related to partition of property, but application for amendment was filed to exclude respondents from acquiring the disputed property. Trial court and High court while giving concurrent findings rejected the application while stating that it will alter the nature of the suit. The apex court while reversing the decision and allowing the application held that an application can be allowed if it does not hamper the whole litigation. From this, a new dimension of the said rule was evolved.

In another judgment of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi[12], SC held discussed about the two provisos of the said rule and held that these provisos leave the court with full discretion of allowing only those applications which they deem fit.

A noticeable judgment was Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanswamy and sons[13], in which the court mentioned the guidelines to be considered by a court of law while allowing or rejecting an application for amendment of pleadings. The application was allowed by the apex body in the present case after perusing numerous judgments.

In Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani[14], the trial court and the high court came to a concurrent finding and dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation. But again, the supreme court reversed the decision and held that the proviso to the said rule will govern the admissibility of the application for amendment.

A judgment which gave an important finding was T.V. Sasikala v. C.P. Joseph[15], which held that before allowing an application the court must ensure that party is praying amendment in a good faith and that couldn’t be sought by the party(ies) previously.

When an application under the said rule shall not be permitted?

·?????? Mala fide intention- The court will not accept an application under O6 R17 if the intention of the applicant is dishonest as discussed in Ramesh kumar Aggarwal vs. Rajmala exports p ltd & ors.[16]

·?????? Non-essential amendment- If the amendment is not required for the determination of actual dispute between the parties.

·?????? Time barred- If there has been a gratuitous delay in filing the application for amendment.

·?????? Alters nature- If the amendment will alter the nature of the suit and introduce a completely new case, then also it shall not be accepted by the court of law.[17]

·?????? Not essential for determining the dispute- If the case can be resolved without considering the proposed amendment, then there is no need to include the same.

Can an amendment alter the nature of a suit?

In the recent case of Basavaraj Vs Indira and others[18], the apex court held that the court should not allow an application for amendment under order 6 rule 17 if it alters the nature of the suit. This case was related with declaration and the applicant sought to add prayer that a compromise decree is null and void. Trial court dismissed the application but when the same was challenged before the HC, it was allowed. But the supreme court dismissed the application filed by the applicant for amendment.

The court relied on M Revanna v. Anjanamma[19] to held that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The general practice is that they are allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and only if they are made in a good faith.

The court in Basavaraj (supra) held that, application shall be rejected if the amendment alters nature of the suit i.e. seeks to introduce a completely different case. And an application shall not be allowed unless it is proven that the party wasn’t able to introduce the amendment earlier despite due diligence.

Impact of 1999 and 2002 amendment under the said rule.

A proviso was added under O. VI R.17 which stated that the court shall use their discretion for allowing an application if they are satisfied by the contention that even after “due diligence” by the applicant, they were unable to assimilate changes which they are seeking now by amendment.[20]

The said rule was omitted by the amendment of 1999 because applicants were filing applications with a mala fide intention to delay the proceedings.

But the same rule was re-instituted in 2002 because of a dire need of the same but this time, it came with a proviso. The re- institution was challenged in the case of Salem Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India,[21] and the court held that the rule is completely valid because the updated provision not just put a limit on the ultimate power of the courts but also it allows the parties to claim the benefit of amending pleadings if they can prove that they were unable to do so earlier despite due diligence.

Supreme court in Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand[22] held that the actual goal of the rule and proviso is to provide the opportunity to amend their pleadings to those who are demanding it bona fide.

Procedure

Step 1 – An application must be made for amendment of pleadings under order 6 rule 17, CPC before the relevant civil judge.

Step 2 – The required court fees as per the Court Fees Act, 1870 shall be paid by the applicant.

Step 3 – The applicant shall clearly mention the importance of amendment and how it can help in greater attainment of justice.

Step 4 – The court will either give the approval or reject the application by keeping in mind that they won’t cause injustice to the other party, and they are essential for the determination of actual dispute between the parties.

Step 5- If the application is allowed then the applicant will amend the application within the specified time (14 days, if not given).

Step 6- A copy of the amended pleadings shall be provided to the opposite party.

Conclusion

After going through numerous judgments, one can conclude that while amending pleadings under order VI rule 17, a party cannot change the nature of the suit. The power under said rule is also not a right of any of the parties. It totally depends upon the discretion of the court to allow or reject an application. The courts will tend to follow a liberal approach and allow an application if it does not cause injustice to other party and is required to ascertain the actual dispute between the parties. Amending pleadings is a major component of litigation in the country and its ultimate aim is to provide substantial justice and not to impede it as stated in Rajni devi v. S/O j&k.[23].

Although, numerous judgments came regarding the issue still the law is not settled yet as more and more judgments are still changing the nature of the said rule. Hence, the SC needs to settle the issue at hand.

[1] India code Civ. Proc., o6 r17.

[2] 2008 SCC OnLine SC 665

[3] 1975 SCC OnLine All 313

[4] AIR 1957 SC 357

[5] (2008) 14 SCC 632

[6] (2004) 6 SCC 415

[7] (2001) 2 SCC 472

[8] 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 93

[9] MANU/DE/1432/2001

[10] MANU/DE/2006/2002

[11] MANU/SC/7318/2007

[12] MANU/SC/8043/2006

[13] MANU/SC/1724/2009

[14] AIR 2017 SCC 5822

[15] MANU/KE/3480/2020

[16] (2012) 5 SCC 337

[17] 2024 INSC 151

[18] ibid

[19] (2019) 4 SCC 332

[20] MANU/SC/0465/2020

[21] MANU/SC/0450/2005.

[22] MANU/SC/7310/2008.

[23] 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 624