Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amendment to add properties in a plaint can be allowed at the appellate stage, but courts apply strict scrutiny and specific conditions must be met.
Basic Provision: Order VI Rule 17 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". This provision explicitly allows amendments at any stage, including the appellate stage.
Before we proceed to answer the question formulated by us in para 27, we deem it necessary to examine Section 22 of the 1963 Act. It reads thus:
“22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of
earnest money, etc.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a
contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an
appropriate case, ask for—
(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of
the property, in addition to such performance; or
(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including
the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made
by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is
refused.
(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)
shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically
claimed:
Provident that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.
(3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of subsection (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award
compensation under section 21.” {Para 54}
The term “proceeding” is a very wide and
comprehensive term and it includes execution proceeding
also. The expression “at any stage of the proceeding”
gives widest permission to the Court to allow amendment
at any stage of the proceeding including execution of the
decree. The amendment can be allowed even in an appeal
arising out of the order passed by the executing Court
rejecting the prayer for permission. The proviso
recognises the well settled position that the Court passing
a decree for specific performance retains control over the
subject matter as long as anything remains to be done in
the case.” {Para 9}.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025
@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023
K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:
Citation: 2025 INSC 617.
Dated: May 02, 2025.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print PagePrinciples governing amendment of pleadings are well-settled. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a 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. It is trite that though an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances, yet the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. It is equally well-settled that unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper- technical approach particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs. Dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (See: L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. MANU/SC/0009/1957 : [1957]1SCR438 , Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. MANU/SC/0020/1974 : [1974]3SCR882 and B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parmeswaran Pillai and Anr. MANU/SC/0775/1999 : AIR2000SC614 Nevertheless, one distinct cause of action cannot be substituted for another nor the subject-matter of the suit can be changed by means of an amendment. The following passage from the decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung A.I.R. 1922 PC 249 succinctly summarises the principle which may be kept in mind while dealing with the prayer for amendment of the pleadings:
All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit. {Para 19}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 6114 and 6115 of 1999 and 1005 and 1006/2000
Decided On: 25.09.2006
State of A.P. and Ors. Vs. Pioneer Builders, A.P.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.K. Sema and Devinder Kumar Jain, JJ.
Author: Devinder Kumar Jain, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/8520/2006
Print PageTrue it is that the plaintiffs have sought to
completely alter the boundaries of the suit property in
all four directions by amending the plaint. The
amendment was opposed on the ground that the
plaintiffs were trying to fill up serious lacuna in their
case. Be that as it may. Trial in the suit is yet to
progress. In such a case, plaintiffs would be at liberty
to correctly describe the suit property by removing any
error. The trial court has not committed any error while
allowing amendment application by imposing costs.
Petition is devoid of any merits. Petition stands
dismissed without any order as to costs. {Para 3}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
950 WRIT PETITION NO.7826 OF 2022
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs SABIYA SULTANA MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN BABA MASTAN AND OTHERS
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : November 25, 2022.
Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 2.
Print PageIn the original plaint, the plaintiff claims that he is owner in possession of one half of the property left behind by his uncle, deceased Salam Bhat, whereas other half is owned and possessed by the defendants who also happen to be the successors-in-interest of other cousin brother of Salam Bhat. In the original plaint, it is claimed by the plaintiff that the deed of adoption in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and, as such, the property of deceased Salam Bhat has to devolve upon his heirs as per Muslim Personal Law. However, by way of proposed amendment, the plaintiff claims that in the absence of deed of adoption, he would be the lone legal heir entitled to ownership and possession of the property left behind of deceased Salam Bhat, which is clearly in contradiction to his claim made in the original plaint.
15) Apart from the above, in the original plaint, the plaintiff claims a decree of partition in respect of the suit property against the defendants whereas by way of proposed amendment, he has sought substitution of relief of partition by a decree of possession of whole of the property left behind by deceased Salam Bhat. Thus, the plaintiff seeks to change the very nature of the suit. Even the cause of action is sought to be changed by the plaintiff by amending the para of the plaint which relates to the cause of action. In the original suit, the plaintiff has claimed that he had sought partition of the property from defendant No.1 and when he refused, he filed the suit but by way of proposed amendment, the plaintiff has pleaded that he had sought possession of the property from defendant No.1 which he refused.
16) Inconsistent pleas can be taken and even subsequent events can be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment but not when the total cause of action is going to be changed. There is no doubt that liberal approach has to be adopted while considering an application for amendment of the pleadings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation but it does not mean that the plaintiff should be permitted to set up a total new cause of action or incorporate new pleas which are inconsistent with the pleadings of the original plaint.
17) The amendment sought by the plaintiff by way of application which he had filed before the learned trial court, if allowed would have amounted to not only the change of cause of action but also to change of nature of the suit. Therefore, the same did not deserve to be allowed and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the same. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
OWP No.1353/2011Read full Judgment here: Click hereThus, the Supreme Court has held that whether amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case earlier set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. In the present case there was complete absence of pleadings with regard to alleged right of pre-emption in favour of plaintiffs and therefore it cannot be stated by any stretch of imagination that the amended prayer is premised on the pleadings which already existed in the plaint. {Para 13}
15. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court
would indicate that it has completely lost sight of the fact that the
amendment would change the nature of the suit entirely. In fact,
though specific objection was raised by defendant no.5 about changeof nature of suit, the trial Court has not recorded any finding on that aspect. However the trial Court did observe that “Given thoughtful consideration to the contentions in the plaint it notices that, it is crystal clear that plaintiffs are coming with a new case in respect of their right to pre-emption.”
16. Despite arriving at a finding that plaintiffs were introducing an altogether new case by amending the plaint, the trial Court has still proceeded to allow the application for amendment on
the ground that since the amendment is also in respect of the same property, the plaintiffs are at liberty to seek a prayer as to how they are entitled to the suit property. This reasoning in my view is completely erroenous.
17. In the result, I find that the order passed by the trial
Court is indefensible and the same is liable to be set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6971 OF 2022
Damodhardas Govindprasad Sangi Vs Fatehsinh s/o. Kalyanji Thakkar
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 12-12-2022
Print PageOnce it is not in dispute that the facts which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment to the pleadings are relating to the events which have occurred after initiation of the proceedings and those facts are in relation to the subject matter of the dispute between the parties, and necessary to decide the real question in controversy, merely because there is delay in filing the application, the same cannot be a justification to refuse the party to amend the pleadings, unless allowing such amendment would result in taking away of any right which might have already accrued to the opposite party.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Civil Revision Appln. No. 668 of 2002
Decided On: 06.06.2002
Krishnaji Shankar Moghe Vs. Sitaram Gangadhar Shende
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/0591/2002,2002(4) ALLMR 393.
Print Page
The High Court was not right in holding that mere alleged transfer/assignment of the agreement would be sufficient to grant leave to Respondent 3 to continue the suit. From the filing of the suit in 1986, over the years, valuable right of defence accrued to the appellant; such valuable right of defence cannot be defeated by granting leave to the third respondent to continue the suit in the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC after 27 years of filing of the suit. The learned Single Judge was not right in saying that impleading Respondent 3 as Plaintiff 3 would cause no prejudice to the appellant and that the issues can be raised at the time of trial.
{Para 12}
13. In a suit for specific performance, application for impleadment must be filed within a reasonable time. Considering the question of impleadment of party in a suit for specific performance after referring to various judgments, in Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. [Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1] the Court summarised the principles as under : (SCC p. 413, para 41)
“41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are:
41.1. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court.
41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.
41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff.
41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation.
41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.”
In light of the above principles, considering the case in hand, in our view, the application filed for impleading Respondent 3 as Plaintiff 3 was not filed within reasonable time. No explanation is offered for such an inordinate delay of 27 years, which was not kept in view by the High Court.
14. Be it noted that an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC seeking leave of the court to continue the suit by the assignee/third respondent was not actually filed. Chamber Summons No. 187 of 2014 was straightaway filed praying to amend the suit which would have been the consequential amendment, had the leave to continue the suit been granted by the court.
15. As pointed out earlier, the application was filed after 27 years of filing of the suit. Of course, the power to allow the amendment of suit is wide and the court should not adopt hypertechnical approach. In considering amendment applications, court should adopt liberal approach and amendments are to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations. We are conscious that mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the amendment. But in the case in hand, the parties are not rustic litigants; all the respondents are companies and the dispute between the parties is a commercial litigation. In such facts and circumstances, the amendment prayed in the chamber summons filed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC ought not to have been allowed, as the same would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. In our view, the impugned order, allowing Chamber Summons No. 187 of 2014 filed after 27 years of the suit would take away the substantial rights of defence accrued to the appellant and the same cannot be sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5909 OF 2022
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Coram: ANIRUDDHA BOSE; J., J.B. PARDIWALA; J.
Author: J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Dated: September 1, 2022
Print PageIt is the settled position in law that once an application for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1. The relevant extract is as below:
“40. It may be true that not only the memorandum of appeal but also the reference was amended. Mr. Rao pointed out that the necessary amendments have been carried out in the application for reference or memorandum of appeal. In terms of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such amendments are required to be carried out in the pleadings by a party who has obtained leave to amend his pleadings within the time granted therefor and if no time was specified then within fourteen days from the date of passing of the order. The consequence of failure to amend the pleadings within the period specified therein as laid down in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code is that the party shall not be permitted to amend his pleadings thereafter unless the time is extended by the court. It is not in dispute that such an order extending the time specified in Order VI Rule 18 has not been passed.
76. We have noticed hereinbefore that the amendments have not been carried out in the pleadings in terms of Order VI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision being mandatory, if not complied with the consequences flowing therefrom shall ensue.” {Para 12}
13. Even in Azad Khan v. Riyajuddin [Second Appeal No. 288 of 2017, decided on 21st March, 2017], the Allahabad High Court upheld dismissal of a suit, when the plaintiff had not filed the amended plaint despite repeated opportunities and had subsequently not appeared before the Court. The Court held as under:
“15. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not attending the Court and he did not comply the order dated 16.1.2015 to amend the memo of the parties. If the plaintiffs do not want to pursue his suit, they cannot be compelled to contest the case.
17. I find that both the courts below have rightly recorded the findings that the appellants have no locus as the memo of parties was not amended by the plaintiff and he was not present on the date fixed. In his absence the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit. Order 6, Rule 18 C.P.C. provides that if a party fails to comply the direction of the Court and does not amend in terms of order of the Court, he shall not be permitted to amend after expiry of the time allowed by the Court. For the sake of convenience the said provision is quoted below:
"18. Failure to amend after Order. If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be unless the time is extended by the Court."
18. On a plain reading it becomes clear that if a party has failed to comply the order within the time frame, he shall not be permitted to carry out the amendment. Of course the Court has power to extend the time. In this case no application was moved by the plaintiff for extension of time. As noted above the plaintiff was not present on the dates fixed. The provision of Order 16, Rule 18 was inserted by Act 22 of the 2002. The intention of the legislature is clear that there should not be delay in deciding the suit by taking recourse to delaying tactic.”
14. In the present case also, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit both for want of amended plaint as also for non-prosecution. Clearly, in view of this fact, in this revision petition no further orders would be called for.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.R.P. 60/2020, CM APPLs. 22672/2020 & 22674/2020
THARVINDER SINGH & ORS Vs VIRESH CHOPRA
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Date of Decision: 4th January, 2022
Print Page
It is seen that the permission for alienation is not a condition precedent to file the suit for specific performance. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the competent authority. The petitioners having expressly admitted that the respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original suit itself. Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent. {Para 4}
SUPREME COURT
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. S Vs. Alliance Ministries And Others
Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil No. 9397 of 1995
1st May, 1995
Citation: 1995 ALLMR ONLINE 586 (S.C.)
Apart from this, a perusal of the original plaint and the proposed amendment filed on behalf of the petitioner would show that the cause of action for the proposed prayer for grant of decree of specific performance and declaration was very much available to the petitioner when he filed the suit for permanent injunction on 11.09.2013. Having failed to incorporate prayers for aforesaid reliefs and restricting the suit only for the relief of permanent injunction, clearly shows that the attempt subsequently made by the petitioner by filing application for amendment on 24.01.2017 was barred by operation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. It is clear that the petitioner was now seeking to change the very nature of the suit, which was impermissible. {Para 12}
16. In the case of K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. .vs. Alliance Ministries (supra) referred to in the above quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-
"4. It is seen that the permission for alienation is not a condition precedent to file the suit for specific performance. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the competent authority. The petitioners having expressly admitted that the respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original suit itself. Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing fo the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, any amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent."
17. The position of law as elucidated in the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents shows that in the present case also prayers sought to be added by the petitioner by way of amendment were not only barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but also by operation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.
18. Insofar as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that relief of specific performance could have been sought by the petitioner only after the competent authority had granted regularisation under the provisions of the Gunthewari Act, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit .vs. Ramesh Chander (supra), nothing prevented the petitioner to make a prayer for decree of specific performance when the suit for permanent injunction was filed on 11.09.2013. The Court would certainly have the power to pass a decree of specific performance in favour of the petitioner, which would be a conditional decree, subject to the competent authority in the present case granting order of regularisation under the provisions of the Gunthewari Act. Therefore, the said submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is also untenable.
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also challenging registered sale deed dated 05.12.2009 which was executed in favour of the defendant no.4 with the collusion of defendant nos. 10 and 11. The suit was filed in the year 2010. After a period of 5 years, the petitioner filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC in year 2015, whereby he sought to challenge the sale deed dated 18.08.2005 alleged to be executed by the defendant no.4 in favour of the defendant no.12 The Court below has rejected the said application on the ground of delay and limitation as the petitioner sought an amendment to challenge the alleged sale deed dated 18.08.2005 in year 2015 in the present suit. The Court has further recorded a finding that the petitioner was well aware of the sale deed executed in the year 2005 when he filed the present civil suit on 14.07.2010. From bare perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-2) also it is evident that the petitioner has shown cause of action arises on 05.12.2009 and 08.12.2009. The Court has rejected amendment application so far it related to clause 2-A and 2-D of the application for amendment.
9. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 while laying down some basic principles for considering the amendment, the Court has stated that as a general rule that Court should decline amendment if a fresh suit on the amendment claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.
11. In the light of above discussion of facts and law, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court in disallowing the application for amendment. The Court has rightly taken into consideration that there was no averment in the application that what has prevented the plaintiff to challenge the sale deed of year 2005 when the suit was filed in the year 2010. The trial Court has rightly held that challenge to the said sale deed of year 2005 in year 2015 by way of application for amendment is barred by the provisions of Limitation Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri A.M. Sudame relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanswamy and Sons and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 in which some basic principles which ought to be taken in to consideration while dealing with application for amendment are stated thus :
“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
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 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 VI
Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.364 OF 2017
Amartya Surendra Deshmukh, Vs Sau. Sheela w/o Rameshrao Deshmukh,
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 30 th AUGUST, 2018.
Citation: 2018(5) ALL MR 878, 2018(6) AIR Bom R 72
Print PageThe learned Trial Court has referred to the provisions of Order XI Rule 5 CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes. But, it has overlooked the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) CPC, which permits the plaintiff to file documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint. The precise case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that when the respondents/respondents denied that invoices were ever raised, the application was moved to bring the invoices on record. Under Order XI Rule 5 CPC, the court can grant leave to the plaintiff to file documents, not filed with the plaint. The learned Commercial Court erred in over-looking these provisions of the CPC. {Para 12}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CM (M) 324/2021
VALO AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD. Vs SPRINT CARS PVT LTD & ORS.
CORAM:
MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
Pronounced on: 18th August, 2021
Print Page