Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: C.S. (Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International India v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
Page 	1 	of 	6
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) - 01, NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. 	(Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International (India) v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 ALONG WITH ORDER I RULE 10 READ
WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908 (IA/01/2026)
O R D E R
24.03.2026
1. 	By this order, I shall decide an application under 	Order VI Rule 17
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), along with 	Order I Rule 10 read
with Section 151 CPC 	filed by the Plaintiff seeking amendment in
the plaint due to death of Sh. Abdul Imran / Defendant No. 3
proprietor of Defendant No. 1 M/s Fashion Chappal Store along with
impleadment of Sh. Abdul Salam / Defendant No. 2 as the sole
defendant in place of Defendants No. 1 and 3.
2. 	Arguments 	on 	the 	present 	application 	advanced 	by 	Sh. 	Paras
Aggarwal, already heard. Record perused.
3. 	Brief facts: 	That in the connected proceedings being CS (Comm)
No. 10183/2022 pending before the Ld. District Judge (Commercial),
Central 	District, 	Tis 	Hazari 	Courts, 	Delhi, 	it 	was 	reported 	that
Defendant No. 3, namely Abdul Salam, expired on 05.01.2022. That
the said Defendant No. 3 was the proprietor of Defendant No. 1, M/s
-- 1 of 6 --
C.S. (Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International India v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
Page 	2 	of 	6
Fashion Chappal, and Defendant No. 2, Abdul Imran, is his son as
well as the authorised signatory of Defendant No. 1. It is stated that
Defendant No. 2 is the legal heir of the deceased Defendant No. 3,
though the Plaintiff is not aware of any other legal heirs and reserves
the right to implead the same, if discovered during the course of
proceedings. That since the right to sue survives against the legal
heirs of the deceased, the impleadment of Defendant No. 2, Abdul
Imran, as representative of Defendants No. 1 and 3 is necessary for
the proper adjudication of the disputes involved in the present suit.
That the proposed amendments are necessary for effective and proper
adjudication of the present suit. Hence, the present Application.
4. 	Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment
of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under :-
“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.”
5. 	The position of law related to amendment of pleadings is clear. It is a
settled principle that procedural law is a handmaid of justice and is
intended to facilitate adjudication on merits rather than to obstruct it.
Where the amendment sought to be introduced does not create any
new right and does not demonstrably prejudice the opposite party, a
-- 2 of 6 --
C.S. (Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International India v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
Page 	3 	of 	6
liberal and justice-oriented approach is warranted. The procedural law
is intended to facilitate and advance the cause of justice and not to
obstruct it. Amendment to pleadings are ought to be allowed where
they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the
parties, provided no irreparable prejudice is caused to the opposite
side. 	(See Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India,
decided on 02.08.2005, reported as (2005) 6 SCC 344; Kailash v.
Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480; Manu Markande v. State, 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 1763).
6. 	The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 	Life Insurance Corporation of India
v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 	decided on 	01.09.2022,
reported as 	(2022) 16 SCC 1, 	after considering various judicial
pronouncements on 	Order VI Rule 17 CPC 	outlined principles.
These are reiterated below for ready reference:
“71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the
requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment
being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence
negatived.
(ii) 	All 	amendments 	are 	to 	be 	allowed 	which 	are 	necessary 	for
determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause
injustice or prejudice to the other side. 	This is mandatory, as is apparent
from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if 	the 	amendment 	is 	required 	for 	effective 	and 	proper
adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
(ii) 	to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment 	does not result in injustice to the other
side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment 	does not
seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party
which confers a right on the other side and
(c) the 	amendment 	does 	not 	raise 	a 	time 	barred 	claim,
resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued
right (in certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless
-- 3 of 6 --
C.S. (Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International India v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
Page 	4 	of 	6
(i) 	by 	the 	amendment, 	a 	time 	barred 	claim 	is 	sought 	to 	be
introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred
becomes a relevant factor for consideration,
(ii) the amendment 	changes the nature of the suit,
(iii) the 	prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the 	other side loses a valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, 	the court
should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required
to be liberal 	especially where the opposite party can be compensated
by costs.
(vi) 	Where 	the 	amendment 	would 	enable 	the 	court 	to 	pin-pointedly
consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory
decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment 	merely sought to introduce an additional or a
new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the
amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is 	intended to rectify
the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) 	Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the
prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment
could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
(x) Where the 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 set up in the
plaint, 	the 	amendment 	must 	be 	disallowed. 	Where, 	however, 	the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is
predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the
amendment is required to be allowed.
(xi) 	Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the
court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear
in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case
set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in
irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an
advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party
seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, 	where
the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the
main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be
allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1897).”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. 	In view of the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it is clear that amendments ought to be
liberally allowed where they are necessary for the effective and
proper adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, provided that no injustice or prejudice is caused to the
-- 4 of 6 --
C.S. (Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International India v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
Page 	5 	of 	6
opposite party. 	However, such 	amendment cannot 	be permitted
where 	it 	seeks 	to 	introduce 	a 	time-barred 	claim, 	alters 	the
fundamental 	nature of 	the 	suit, 	withdraws 	clear 	admissions, 	or
deprives the opposite party of a valid defence available in law. Thus,
while 	the 	approach 	of 	the 	Court 	must 	be 	liberal 	and 	non-
hypertechnical, the ultimate test remains whether the amendment
aids in determining the real controversy without causing irreparable
prejudice to the other side. 	(See Sanjeev Builders (supra)).
8. 	Coming back to the facts of the present case, the present application
has been filed before the commencement of trial. Therefore, the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not come into play. The
amendment sought to be introduced in the plaint does not cause any
injustice or prejudice to the opposite side. It does not raise a time
barred claim and does not change the nature of the suit altogether. The
proposed amendment sought by the Plaintiff does not change the
nature of the suit nor introduce a new or inconsistent cause of action.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed.
9. 	Accordingly, the application under 	Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 CPC 	along with 	Order I Rule 10 read with Section
151 CPC (IA/01/2026) 	filed by the Plaintiff for amendment in the
plaint due to death of Defendant No. 3 proprietor of Defendant No. 1
along with impleadment of Sh. Abdul Salam / Defendant No. 2 as the
sole defendant 	is allowed. 	The amended suit along with amended
memo of parties as filed, are taken on record.
10. 	The Defendant is granted liberty to file a reply/written statement to
the amended pleadings, if any, in accordance with law, within the
four weeks of this order.
-- 5 of 6 --
C.S. (Comm.) No. 12/2023
M/s AS International India v. M/s Fashion Chappal Store and Ors.
Page 	6 	of 	6
11. It is clarified that the liability, if any, of the deceased, Sh. Abdul
Salam (earlier Defendant No. 3), shall be enforceable against his
legal representative, namely Sh. Abdul Imran (earlier Defendant
No. 2), only to the extent of the estate inherited by him, in terms
of Section 50 CPC.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 24th 	day of March, 2026
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/Delhi
24.03.2026
-- 6 of 6 --