Amendment of plaint after commencement of trial when permissible?

Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 6 R. 17 proviso (as amended by CPC Amendment Act 22 of 2002) and Or. 7 Rr. 1 and 7 - Object and purpose of
Or. 6 R. 17 proviso - Amendment of plaint after commencement of trial - When permissible - Matters to be considered -
Relief claimed by way of amendment if time-barred - Held, if such amendment application is made after commencement
of trial, court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, plaintiff could not have raised matter before
commencement of trial - Or. 6 R. 17 proviso to some extent curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage -
Object of Or. 6 R. 17 that courts should try merits of case that comes before them and should, consequently, allow all
amendments that may be necessary for determining real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does
not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side - Main purpose of allowing amendment is to minimise litigation and plea
that relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in light of facts and circumstances of
each case, 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 6 R. 17 proviso (as amended by CPC Amendment Act 22 of 2002) and Or. 7 R. 7 - Amendment of plaint after
commencement of trial - When permissible - Making clear and explicit what was already implicit in plaint - Nature of suit
not changed - Held, all amendments which are necessary for purpose of determining real questions in controversy
between the parties should be allowed if it does not change basic nature of suit - On facts, challenge to voidness of sale
deeds was implicit in factual matrix set out in unamended plaint and, therefore, relief of cancellation of sale deeds as
sought by amendment does not change nature of suit as alleged - Furthermore, proposed amendment to include a relief
of declaration of title, in addition to permanent injunction which was claimed in unamended plaint, is to protect plaintiffs'
interest and not to change basic nature of suit as alleged - Thus, contrary view expressed by trial court and High Court
cannot be sustained - Amendments permitted, (

Print Page