Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page No. 1/6
17 Civ Suit 210/24
MANJU RANI Vs. ANJALI MALIK
01.04.2026
Order on application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
1. The instant application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order
VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’).
Submissions of Plaintiff
2. Plaintiff seeks to amend his plaint and drop Defendant Numbers 2
to 6 from the instant suit. The other amendment sought by the Plaintiff is
in respect of clarifying the suit property to the effect that relief is sought
in respect of Ground floor and Second Floor of the suit property as
Defendant Number 1 (hereinafter ‘D1’) is already occupying First Floor
of the Suit Property as per the order dated 07.06.2022 rendered by Ld.
M.M. Mahila Court.
3. The amendment sought is in nature of clarification.
Submissions of D 1
4. Ld. Counsel for D1 would oppose the instant application on the
ground that the application does not clarify what kind of amendment is
sought by the Plaintiff in the instant application and that the application is
vague and unclear.
Analysis and Findings
5. Before proceeding to examining the application on merits. Let us
reproduce the provision under consideration. Order VI Rule 17 CPC
would read thus:
-- 1 of 6 --
Page No. 2/6
17. 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: 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.
6. Thus, the provision cited above permits the court to pass such order
as would enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy
between the parties. That order could be to permit the party to amend
their pleadings. The only rider is that the amendment should not be
readily permitted once the trial has commenced.
7. While explaining the scope of this provision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India would observe in
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh,1 that:
9. Keeping this principle in mind, let us now consider the
provisions relating to amendment of pleadings. Order 6 Rule
17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of
pleadings which 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
1 (2006) 6 SCC 498
-- 2 of 6 --
Page No. 3/6
controversy between the parties. From a bare perusal of this
provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that
the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such
amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the
real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in
view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it
cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion
has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the
pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it
appears to the court just and proper. While dealing with the
prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in
mind that the court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it
finds that delay in disposal of suit can be avoided and that
the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. By the Code of
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 a proviso has been
added to Order 6 Rule 17 which restricts the courts from
permitting an amendment to be allowed in the pleadings of
either of the parties, if at the time of filing an application for
amendment, the trial has already commenced. However, the
court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of
due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of trial. So far as proviso to Order
6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, we
shall deal with it later.
xxx xxx xxx
-- 3 of 6 --
Page No. 4/6
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Thus, it is clear that if the amendment which is sought helps in
determining the real controversy between the parties the mandatory
portion of the provision plays out and such amendment must be allowed
by the Court.
9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as
Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons,2 would
also lay down certain rules of prudence to be factored into while
considering an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which reads
thus:
Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with
applications for amendments
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;
2 (2009) 10 SCC 84
-- 4 of 6 --
Page No. 5/6
(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.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Thus, as a general rule the amendments necessary for determining
real controversy must be allowed but those amendment which tend to
change the character of the suit or which tend to retract the admissions
made in the suit are not to be permitted by the Court.
11. In the light of above legal position, let us examine the instant
application.
12. Clearly, the trial has not commenced in the instant matter. Further,
the Plaintiff seeks to drop Defendant Numbers 2 to 6. This would not
cause prejudice to D1.
13. Point of contention is the amendment regarding description of
property. In that context, the Plaintiff has shown that confusion regarding
portion of property occupied by D1 was also in another proceeding before
Ld. M.M. Mahila Court and the same was later clarified. The fact that
Plaint is silent about possession of first floor D1 does not, in my opinion,
either changes the nature of suit nor does it operate to retract any
-- 5 of 6 --
Page No. 6/6
admission by the Plaintiff. At most, it only clarifies which portion of the
property is occupied by the Plaintiff and D1.
14. Thus, I conclude that aforesaid amendment would only aid this
Court in determining real controversy between the parties and no
prejudice would be caused to D1.
15. Thus, the instant application for amendment is allowed subject to
cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by Plaintiff to D1 on or before NDOH,
against acknowledgment.
16. The necessary amendment be made on or before NDOH, amended
plaint along with amended memo of parties be filed on or before NDOH
and advance copy of the same be supplied to D1 at least 7 days before
NDOH, against acknowledgment.
17. Application disposed on above terms.
18. List for admission/denials/framing of issues/filing of evidence
affidavit along with list of witnesses on 13.05.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/01.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --