Can a Court Allow a Time-Barred Amendment of Pleadings? Scope of Trial Court and First Appellate Court Powers Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers a wide discretionary power on civil courts to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage if the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. But this power is not unstructured: the court must weigh necessity, prejudice, limitation, due diligence, and the effect of the proposed amendment on the nature of the case.

A frequent question is whether a court can permit an amendment when the plea or relief sought to be introduced appears to be barred by limitation. The correct answer is: yes, in some cases; no, in others. There is no absolute prohibition against allowing a time-barred amendment, but a court should ordinarily decline such amendment when it introduces a fresh cause of action or a fresh relief that had already become barred on the date of the amendment application, because that would deprive the opposite party of a valuable accrued defence.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Subsequent events can be brought on record by amendment where they are linked to the original controversy and form part of a continuous cause of action

Challenging the Impugned Order, the Appellants submit that subsequent events of debarment give rise to a fresh cause of action for which a fresh suit is to be filed, regardless of the parties being the same. Accordingly, it is their case that the Underlying Debarment Order dated 31.10.2017 gave rise to a fresh cause of action for which the Respondent did not take any steps for initiating action, resulting in now being time-barred. Therefore, the proposed amendment changes the character and the nature of the suit. {Para 10}

22. We have carefully perused the Underlying Application preferred by the Respondent before the High Court. The facts sought to be brought on record relate to the subsequent debarment orders and their respective challenges. Adjudication in the Civil Suit will be incomplete and ineffective if the consequent facts are not brought on record. This is due to the fact that the subsequent debarment orders and related events form a continuous chain finding its genesis in the memo dated 08.03.2016. For instance, the Respondent has made a claim for an amount to be paid to it by penalising the Appellants for wrongfully issuing the First Debarment Order. The subsequent debarment orders all arise as a part of the same event and hence, its effect on the claim of the Respondent, if any, must be adjudicated together. Accordingly, we hold that the subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed, as it does not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2025 

Decided On: 09.01.2025

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Pam Developments Private Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: S.C. Sharma, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 69,MANU/SC/0057/2025.

Print Page

Additional Evidence in First Appeal: Original Documents, Subsequent Events, and the Limits of Remand

Q :-  Documents were not produced before trial court as those documents were not traceable and were not exhibited as xerox copies were filed. whether any party can produce original documents before appellate court? whether appellate court can allow production of original documents at appellate stage only on the ground that those documents were not traceable at the time of proceeding before trial court?

Ans:- First appeals often raise a recurring procedural problem: can a party produce documents for the first time in appeal, especially when the originals were not filed before the trial court? The answer is yes, but only in limited circumstances, because additional evidence in appeal is an exception and not a matter of right.

Print Page

Whether motor accident claim tribunal can grant amount under the head of consortium if said person has died after filing of claim petition?

By applying the dictum as laid down in Smt. Somwati's case (supra) both the parents of the deceased Balbir Singh are held entitled to a filial consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each. The submission advanced by counsel for the insurance company that since parents of the deceased have already expired as such the amount under the head of loss of consortium cannot be awarded is found to be misconceived and not well founded. Upon the death of Balbir Singh in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.10.2000, not only the widow and minor children but even the parents had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. Claim of the parents for grant of filial consortium as such had crystallised at the time of the accident itself i.e. on 30.10.2000 when they had lost their son Balbir Singh in the accident. Such claim which already stood crystallised on the date of the accident cannot be negated by the subsequent death of the parents themselves. {Para 20}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-3756-2002(O&M)

Decided On: 18.01.2021

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

Citation: MANU/PH/0025/2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Claims and legal liabilities crystallize at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings.

 ANALYSIS

I. Deduction for Personal Expenses

10. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallize at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how Appellant-claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the Respondent-insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal proceedings. Similarly, any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates cannot throw-away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law.1Director of Elementary Education v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo,   MANU/SC/1329/2019 : (2019) 10 SCC 674, p. 11.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021.

Decided On: 05.01.2021

Kirti and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Surya Kant, S. Abdul Nazeer and N.V. Ramana, JJ.

Authored By : Surya Kant, N.V. Ramana

Author: Surya Kant, J.

Citation: AIR 2021 SC 353,MANU / SC / 0004 / 2021,[ 2021 ] 1 SCR 989,( 2021 ) 2 SCC 166.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: Preserving the existing standard of living of a deceased's family is a fundamental endeavour of motor accident compensation law.

II. Assessment of monthly income

12. Second, although it is correct that the claimants have been unable to produce any document evidencing Vinod's income, nor have they established his employment as a teacher; but that doesn't justify adoption of the lowest-tier of minimum wage while computing his income. From the statement of witnesses, documentary evidence-on-record and circumstances of the accident, it is apparent that Vinod was comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled. Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced by his use of a motorcycle for commuting. Preserving the existing standard of living of a deceased's family is a fundamental endeavour of motor accident compensation law.3R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2019) 14 SCC 1, p. 9.Thus, at the very least, the minimum wage of Rs. 6197 as applicable to skilled workers during April 2014 in the State of Haryana ought to be applied in his case.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021.

Decided On: 05.01.2021

Kirti and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Surya Kant, S. Abdul Nazeer and N.V. Ramana, JJ.

Authored By : Surya Kant, N.V. Ramana

Author: Surya Kant, J.

Citation: AIR 2021 SC 353,MANU / SC / 0004 / 2021,[ 2021 ] 1 SCR 989,( 2021 ) 2 SCC 166.

Print Page

Whether court can take note of subsequent events in execution of decree?

For the foregoing discussion, we must hold that events which take place subsequent to the filing of an eviction petition under any Rent Act can be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication until a decree is made by the final Court determining the rights of the parties but any event that takes place after the decree becomes final cannot be made a ground for reopening the decree. The finality to the dispute culminating in the decree cannot be reopened by the executing Court for re-adjudication on the ground that some event or the other has altered the situation. As a corollary thereto it must also be held that once the decree became final it became a part of the estate of the landlord and therefore the appellants as legal representatives of the deceased landlord are entitled to execute the same.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 622 of 1994.

Decided On: 04.02.1994

P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Mohan and M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.

Citation:AIR 1994 SC 1577, (1994) 2 SCC 316

Print Page

When court should direct eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide need of landlord?

"The ejectment has been done by both the Courts below on the ground that the property is required for the sons of the landlord. Counsel has tried to demonstrate that on an earlier occasion some property has been sold by the landlord and, therefore, bona fide requirement is not made out. However, it is not disputed that the sale took place in 2006 whereas the petition was filed in the year 2010. The requirement of the landlord can keep on changing with times and therefore the said argument cannot be given much weight.

 Similarly, the shop which was allegedly sold was in the year 2006 and, therefore, if the landlord was in need of some money and sold part of his property, it would not be a ground to disbelieve his bona fide requirement. 

It is not expected that the son would sit idle and not do any other business and would wait for the result of the proceedings which has taken six years at the initial stage itself. It is settled principle that the date of institution is to be seen and merely because during the pendency, his son had started doing business, would not as such be a ground to deny the benefit of the need which was the requirement at that point of time and which can still be utilized as such and can be put into motion.

5. The Supreme Court while dilating on the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord in Sarla Ahuja's case (supra) held that the requirement of landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide and the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the assumption that requirement is not bona fide. 

It has also been held that a pragmatic approach is to be taken and the crucial date of litigation when the suit for eviction was filed although subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding the reliefs have to be kept in mind but the fact remains that the person who had started litigation cannot be expected to sit idle during the said period. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

C.R. No. 1630 of 2017 (O&M)

Decided On: 24.03.2017

Arun Kumar Vs. Gurcharan Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

Citation: 2017(2) RCR(Rent) 37

Print Page

Whether amplification of pleadings is permissible by amendment of pleading?

Whether allowance of application for amendment of plaint filed by one of Respondents was valid - Held, amendment was only amplification of pleadings already on record - Amendment contained some subsequent developments and quantification of damages - Respondent had acted with due diligence - Merits of amendment could not have been gone into at this stage - Amendment was necessary for deciding real controversy in dispute - Therefore, allowance of application for amendment of plaint filed by one of Respondents was valid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 259 of 2015

Decided On: 31.08.2015

Rajaram Naik Vs. The State of Goa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.V. Bhadang, J.
Citation: 2016(1) MHLJ 770

Print Page

Whether court should allow amendment which is necessary for passing of executable order?

It is essential to give full opportunity to both the parties to put their respective case in the Suit, If case is made out even at the appellate stage or until the suit/litigation attains finality. The amendment which is based upon the events/facts which are available or well within the knowledge of the concerned parties before filing of the suit and the subsequent events and/or the materials cropped up after filing of the suit and which are necessary to decide the controversy and/or relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue and/or for passing executable final decree/judgment, the Court needs to consider the same differently, based upon the facts and material available on the record. The Court also to consider, that even if the facts/materials are taken on record as it is, whether the Court will be in a position to pass the executable order/decree. There is no point in passing any Judgment or order which is inexecutable. The Court cannot overlook the subsequent events or the material which are necessary for passing final order/decree in the interest of justice for or against the parties and or even to consider whether it is likely to frustrate the basic claim or the case.

15. The Apex Court a Three-Judge Bench decision in Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors. MANU/SC/0349/1974 : [1974]3SCR101 , has observed as under:

10. ...Ordinarily, a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution. But it is open to a Court (including a court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation; or (3) to do complete justice between the parties.

16. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders MANU/SC/0415/1975 : [1975]3SCR958 , a three-Judge Bench has further observed as under:

4. ...If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink as it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice - subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. ...We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Chamber Summons No. 218 of 2009 in Suit No. 95 of 2006

Decided On: 22.04.2009

NTPC Limited Vs. Reliance Industries Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Citation: 2009(4) ALLMR 24

Print Page

When court can take note of subsequent events occurred during pendency of suit?

Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal MANU/SC/0035/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 256, this Court held as under:

11. The ordinary Rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the Rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders MANU/SC/0415/1975 : (1975) 1 SCC 770 this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the Rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or Rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) Rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the Rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed.
Om Prakash Gupta's case was referred with approval in Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) MANU/SC/7670/2007 : (2007) 5 SCC 660.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19117 of 2013)

Decided On: 07.02.2017

 Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma (D) thr. L.Rs.

Print Page

Whether landlady will not be entitled to eviction decree if she is married subsequently?

 In the facts of present case, the Appellant-landlady herein was living in a small house with her family comprising four members and was not able to accommodate her ailing grandparents who used to visit them frequently for medication purposes and were willing to reside with them permanently as they were living alone in their village where nobody was there to look after them. Appellant in order to accommodate her grandparents with them and in the light of growing needs of her and her younger sister (who were then studying) filed the release application before the prescribed authority and the release order was granted by the prescribed authority in favour of the Appellant/landlady directing Respondent-tenant to handover vacant possession of suit premises to the Appellant. As noticed earlier, during the pendency of appeal, preferred by the Respondent-tenant, the Appellant got married and settled with her husband. The first appellate court as well as the High Court took note of this as subsequent development and held that the requirement no longer subsists and the claim of personal requirement has disappeared. Of course, during the pendency of lis between the parties, situation underwent a change and the Appellant got married to an Indian Revenue Service Officer and started residing with him in Delhi and Mumbai etc. Though the Appellant is married and settled with her husband, her bona fide requirement cannot be said to have ended as she wanted the premises not just for herself but to accommodate her parents and grandparents in the suit premises so that they can live together. The family of the Appellant is still said to be residing in rented premises in Moradabad, despite having their own suit premises to reside in. In the facts of present case, the change in subsequent events is not such that would deprive the Appellant of her right to vacant possession of suit premises as it is a natural event that the daughter of the house would get married and settle with her husband. Though the Appellant has got married and shifted to different accommodation with her husband, the actual bona fide requirement of premises is still the same, since her parents and grandparents are still residing separately from each other with no one to look after them. More so, the Appellant got married but the family stays where it is and the bona fide requirement of premises for accommodation of parents remains the same. Being married and shifting to other place does not automatically result in extinguishing of bona fide requirement of the Appellant as being the owner of property, she alone is to decide what she wants to do with her property.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19117 of 2013)

Decided On: 07.02.2017

 Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma (D) thr. L.Rs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi, JJ.
Citation: (2017) 5 SCC 640

Print Page

When court can take notice of subsequent events?

Ordinarily, a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution. But it is open to a Court (including a court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate, or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or (3) to do complete justice between the parties (See Rai Charan Mandal and another v.. Biswanath Mandal and others).

Supreme Court of India

Shikharchand Jain vs Digamber Jain Praband Karini ... on 11 January, 1974

Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1174, 1974 SCC (2) 215

BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
PALEKAR, D.G.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

Print Page

Whether court should allow amendment of plaint to bring on record subsequent event?

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, a ground on which the suit for eviction was not initially instituted, but if that ground being a ground for eviction under the Act and being available to the landlord during the suit, can be allowed to be taken by the landlord during the pendency of the suit and the landlord can legally ask the Court to allow amendment of the plaint taking into account the subsequent event after the institution of the suit and can legally press into service for the relief of eviction of the tenant on that ground (which is one of the grounds for eviction under the Act). As already stated above, such amendments on such grounds (of course being available under the Act) being based on subsequent event should be allowed in a suit for eviction against the tenant just to shorten the litigation, to preserve the rights of both the parties and to subserve the ends of justice. Reference may be made to the case of Sachchidanand v. Heeranand, MANU/BH/0066/1983 : AIR 1983 Pat 276:1983 BBCJ (HC) 168).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Civil Revn. No. 1128 of 1983

Decided On: 09.11.1983

Annapurna Agrawal and Ors.

Vs.

Jitendra Kumar Sinha and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashwini Kumar Sinha , J.

Citation: AIR 1984 Patna 215

Print Page

Whether court can take judicial notice of subsequent events While deciding appeal?

Having heard the learned Counsel for the
parties at length and on perusal of the record of the
case, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary
for this Court to decide any of the points urged by
the learned counsel on account of certain
subsequent events which took place during the
pendency of this litigation. In our opinion, the
subsequent events brought to our notice have a
direct bearing over the controversy involved in this
case and hence they deserve to be taken note of for
deciding the appeal.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 4375 OF 2017

Dinshaw Rusi Mehta & Anr.
V
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1557

Print Page

Whether substantive rights can be created in a suit by subsequent events?

 Further, they placed reliance upon the case of

this Court in Rameshwar & Ors. v. Jot Ram & Anr

 (1976) 1 SCC 194

In the said authority it has been held as follows:

“9…First, its bearing on the right of

action, second, on the nature of the

relief and third, on its impotence to

create or destroy substantive rights.

Where the nature of the relief, as

originally sought, has become obsolete or

unserviceable or a new form of relief will

be more efficacious on account of

developments subsequent to the suit or

even during the appellate stage, it is but

fair that the relief is moulded, varied or

reshaped in the light of updated facts.

Patterson illustrates this position. It is

important that the party claiming the

relief or change of relief must have the

same right from which either the first or

the modified remedy may flow. Subsequent

events in the course of the case cannot be

constitutive of substantive rights

enforceable in that very litigation except

in a narrow category (later spelt out) but

may influence the equitable jurisdiction

to mould reliefs. Conversely, where rights

have already vested in a party, they

cannot be nullified or negated by

subsequent events save where there is a

change in the law and it is made

applicable at any stage. Lachmeshwar

Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri

falls in this category. Courts of justice

may, when the compelling equities of a

case oblige them, shape reliefs — cannot

deny rights — to make them justly relevant

in the updated circumstances. Where the

relief is discretionary, courts may

exercise this jurisdiction to avoid

injustice. Likewise, where the right to

the remedy depends, under the statute

itself, on the presence or absence of

certain basic facts at the time the relief

is to be ultimately granted, the Court,

even in appeal, can take note of such

supervening facts with fundamental

impact…”

(Emphasis supplied)

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7835 OF 2014

PEMMADA PRABHAKAR  Vs. YOUNGMEN’S VYSYA ASSOCIATION 

Coram:

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Citation;2014(5)ALLMR921 SC,(2015)5 SCC 355

Print Page