Belated amendment of pleadings refused where it would transform the suit by adding a new constitutional challenge.

Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC may be permitted to determine the real controversy, but it can be refused where the change is belated, causes prejudice, or introduces a fundamentally new and inconsistent case. A proposed amendment seeking to directly challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 was refused because it would have altered the foundation of the suit and was inconsistent with the original cause of action. The plaintiff was nevertheless left free to raise narrower objections at trial about the manner in which the power was exercised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint should be allowed to incorporate a challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000.

Analysis: Amendment of pleadings is governed by Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the corresponding procedural rule in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Such amendment may be permitted where it is necessary for determining the real question in controversy, does not cause irremediable prejudice, and does not introduce a fundamentally new or inconsistent case. The application was filed at a very late stage after the suit had substantially progressed. The original plaint had challenged the manner in which the Central Government exercised power under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000, but had not questioned the vires of those provisions. Allowing the proposed amendment would have altered the foundation of the suit and rendered the existing claim incongruous with the original cause of action. At the same time, the plaintiff was not foreclosed from urging, at trial, that the notifications were issued without proper guidelines and without due opportunity.

Conclusion: The amendment to introduce a direct challenge to the vires of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) was not allowed, though the plaintiff was left free to raise limited objections on the manner of exercise of power at trial.

Final Conclusion: The requested amendment was refused in substance because it would have transformed the nature of the suit, but the matter was disposed of with liberty to advance a narrower challenge on the exercise of power during trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated amendment that introduces a fundamentally different and inconsistent case, especially one that alters the very basis of the original suit, should be refused even though amendments are generally allowed to determine the real controversy.

---