Interlocutory Application can be filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (CPC, 1908) to amend or alter the pleadings at any stage of the case proceedings. The amendment or alteration should be directly related to the subject material of the dispute between the parties if it does not cause injustice to the other side. The Court will notify the opposite party before allowing the application for amendment. The Court will not entertain applications filed after the commencement of trial. According to Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC, 1908, the amendment should be made within fourteen days of receiving the order to amend or alter the pleadings; after that, it is the discretion of the court to allow the amendment.
The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed regarding the amendment of pleadings in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) vs Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22443 of 2019). The primary issue in this case was that the Supreme Court challenged the amendment application allowed by the lower court because the relief was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the mere delay in application should not be a bar to seeking relief under Order 6 Rule 17.
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 do 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 the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
(d) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
(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) the other side loses a valid defence by the amendment.
(v) When dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach, which is ordinarily required to be liberal, especially where costs can compensate the opposite party.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to consider the dispute more precisely and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely seeks to introduce an additional or new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, it is liable to be allowed even after the expiry of the limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) A delay in applying for an amendment alone is not grounds for disallowing the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed, and the issue of limitation could be framed separately for the decision.
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action to establish an entirely new case foreign to the case established in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. However, the amendment sought only concerns the relief in the plaint and is predicated on facts already pleaded. Ordinarily, the amendment is required to be allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before the commencement of trial, the court must be liberal in its approach. The court must remember that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in the amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party or divest the opposite party of an advantage it had secured due to an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment must be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate 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)
Done By: Sowmiya R.K , B.A.,LL.B(Hons), LLM (Business Law), Junior Legal Consultant
