Position of law on amendment of pleadings laid down by way of precedents is summarized

85 There is no change in the law laid down by the Apex 

Court prior to an amendment introducing the proviso to Order VI, 

Rule 17 of CPC and even after an amendment, the criteria to be 

applied remains the same to the extent that the Court must be 

satisfied on the following conditions when it allows an 


amendment :

(a) The amendment necessary for 

determining the real controversy involved in the 

matter and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation 

should be liberally allowed.

(b) It should not change the nature or basic 

structure of the suit.


(c) The change in the nature of the relief 

claimed shall not be considered as a change in 

the nature of the suit and the power needs to be 

exercised for doing full and complete justice 

between the parties.

(d) The amendment changing cause of 

action setting up a fresh claim, which has 

become barred by limitation since the date of 

institution of the suit, should not be allowed. As 

a general rule, the Court should decline the 

amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claim 

would be barred by limitation on the date of the 

application.

(e) The amendment causing injustice and 



prejudice of an irremediable character, which 

cannot be compensated by awarding costs, 

should not be allowed.

(f) The Court should discourage mala fide 

amendment designed to delay or protract the 

legal proceedings.

86. The change brought about by introducing proviso to 

Order VI, Rule 17 is to apply the additional test of “due 

diligence” after the commencement of the trial. The entire object 

of the said amendment is to stall filing of applications for granting 

a pleading subsequent to the commencement of the trial, to avoid 

surprises and the party had sufficient knowledge of the other's 

case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the 

applications. Once the trial commences on the known pleas, it 

will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. In spite of the 

same, an exception is made in the newly inserted proviso where it 

is shown that in spite of due diligence he could not raise a plea, it 

is for the Court to consider the same. Therefore, it is not a 



                                                                             
complete bar, nor shuts out entertaining of any later application. 

The reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite the 

hearing of the cases. It puts an embargo on exercise of its 

jurisdiction. The Court's discretion in such a case is limited. 

Unless the jurisdictional fact as involved therein is found to be 

existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the 

amendment of the plaint. There is no absolute bar and in spite of 

delay, if acceptable material/materials placed before the Court 

show that the delay was beyond their control and diligence, it 

would be possible for the Court to consider the same by 

compensating the other side, imposing realistic costs rather than 

symbolic.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5775 OF 2012
AND
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.482 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013

Walchandnagar Industries Limited,

Versus
1. Indraprastha Developers,

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 25-9-2013
Citation;2014(2) ALLMR 550

Link to the judgement is : http://bit.ly/1i4ougF