GAURI DEVI Vs. RESHMANI MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is plaintiff in Title Suit No.92 of 1998, is aggrieved of order dated 20.03.2012 by which her application for amendments in the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) Plea urged on behalf of the plaintiff is that the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the suit and it would not cause any prejudice to the defendants and, therefore, for bringing complete facts on record the proposed amendments are required to be incorporated in the plaint.

(3.) Order VI Rule 17 CPC which permits amendment in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings is founded on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the court may permit either party to amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, however, Rule 17 CPC itself puts a limitation on powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. It provides that if amendment in the pleadings is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, all amendments in the pleadings can be permitted on such terms as the court may deem just and proper. After Order VI Rule 17 CPC was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 and a proviso was inserted therein, further limitation has been put on powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. It provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced and by now it is well-settled that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is mandatory. However, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC itself carves out an exception. It provides that if inspite of due diligence the matter could not have been raised by the parties before the commencement of trial, amendment in the pleadings can be permitted. In "Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India, 2005 6 SCC 344", scope of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the following words :