Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, setting aside the trial court’s order that had dismissed the amendment application. The High Court held that the trial court had erred by rejecting the amendment solely on the ground that it was filed after a preliminary issue on limitation had been raised, emphasising that pre-trial amendments should be liberally allowed, particularly when they are necessary to determine the real controversy without altering the nature of the suit.
The court directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint as sought, clarifying that the respondent would not suffer prejudice since the opportunity to contest would remain.
Facts
The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of a friendly loan advanced to the respondent. Before summons were issued, the trial court framed a preliminary issue regarding limitation. While the matter was pending for arguments on limitation, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to incorporate correct dates of the loan transactions based on entries discovered in an old diary maintained in the ordinary course of her professional affairs. The petitioner provided the relevant extracts, seeking to replace vague references with exact dates, including payments of ₹5,000 on 19 December 2014, ₹50,000 on 5 March 2015, ₹25,000 on 10 March 2015, and ₹10,000 on 15 March 2015.
The trial court, while finding the suit within limitation, dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the petitioner was attempting to amend the plaint to overcome limitation issues and that the diary was not maintained in the ordinary course.
Issues
- Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint to incorporate specific dates of loan transactions.
- Whether pre-trial amendments should be allowed even if they support the petitioner’s position on limitation.
- Whether the nature of the suit would change due to the proposed amendments.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The amendment was necessary to clarify factual inaccuracies regarding the exact dates and amounts of the friendly loan advanced, discovered through a diary maintained in the ordinary course of business.
- The trial court should not assess the merits or demerits of the amendment while considering the application, particularly when the case was at a pre-trial stage.
- The rejection of the amendment on the presumption that it was aimed at circumventing limitation was erroneous since the suit was already within limitation.
- Denial of the amendment would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner in prosecuting her rightful claim.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, despite initial appearance through counsel, did not appear for subsequent hearings. As a result, the High Court proceeded without the benefit of detailed arguments from the respondent.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which permits amendment of pleadings at any stage if necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. It highlighted that amendments should be considered liberally, especially before the commencement of the trial, and should not be denied merely because they may aid a party’s case on limitation.
The judgment discussed the principles laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., outlining that:
- Amendments necessary to determine the real controversy should be allowed if they do not cause prejudice or injustice.
- Delay alone is not a ground to reject an amendment.
- Pre-trial amendments should be allowed liberally.
- Courts should avoid a hyper-technical approach while dealing with amendment applications.
Precedent Analysis
The court relied on:
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC 1128, which summarised principles for allowing amendments, including that amendments necessary for deciding real controversies should be allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice.
- Sukriti Dugal v. Jahnavi Dugal & Ors. (2019) and Mrs. Anita Kumari Gupta v. Late Mr. Ved Bhushan & Ors., where it was held that amendment applications should be considered first even when an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is pending, ensuring substantive justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found the trial court’s findings contradictory since it had held the suit within limitation yet rejected the amendment on the assumption that it was filed to overcome limitation issues. It observed that the proposed amendments did not alter the nature of the suit, which remained a recovery suit, but only clarified the dates of transactions, which would facilitate effective adjudication of the dispute.
Further, the court noted that the trial court’s observation regarding the diary’s nature was perverse since only extracts were filed at that stage, and the merits of such evidence should be examined during the trial, not while deciding an amendment application.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court’s order, permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint to incorporate specific dates of loan transactions, observing:
“Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally. Respondent shall not be prejudiced because she will have an opportunity to rebut the amendment sought to be made.”
The matter was remanded back to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with law, allowing the amendment for effective adjudication of the controversy.
Implications
- Reaffirms the liberal approach courts must adopt in pre-trial amendment applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
- Clarifies that amendments supporting a party’s case on limitation are not to be rejected solely on that basis if the suit is otherwise within limitation.
- Provides clarity that the merits of documents filed with an amendment should not be adjudicated while deciding amendment applications.
- Strengthens the jurisprudence that amendments should be allowed if they facilitate effective adjudication without changing the nature of the suit.
FAQs
1. Can amendments to pleadings be made to support a party’s case on limitation?
Yes, if the suit is otherwise within limitation and the amendment does not change the nature of the suit, such amendments can be allowed to facilitate effective adjudication.
2. When are pre-trial amendments generally allowed under civil procedure?
Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally, particularly if they clarify facts necessary to decide the controversy without causing prejudice to the other side.
3. Can a court reject an amendment because the evidence to support it may not appear convincing at the amendment stage?
No, the merits of the evidence are to be examined during trial, and not while deciding whether to allow the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
