Liberal amendment of pleadings should be allowed to resolve the real dispute and avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should ordinarily be permitted liberally where it serves the real controversy and avoids multiplicity of litigation, even if objections are raised that it changes the nature of the suit or introduces a new case. The court may allow amendment at any stage if justice requires, and compensatory costs can address prejudice to the opposite side. Where limitation is disputable on the pleaded facts, that issue may be left for determination after amendment. The refusal to permit amendment was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, should be allowed despite objections that it introduces a new case, alters the nature of the suit, and is barred by limitation.

Analysis: The power to permit amendment of pleadings is wide and may be exercised at any stage if justice so requires. A liberal approach is the general rule, particularly where the opposite side can be compensated by costs, and technical objections should not defeat adjudication on the real controversy. The dominant purpose of allowing amendment is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Where the plea of limitation is disputable on the facts pleaded, it may be left to be decided as an issue after amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment ought to have been allowed, and the refusal to permit it was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendments of pleadings should ordinarily be permitted liberally to decide the real dispute and avoid multiplicity of litigation, unless they cause irremediable prejudice or are otherwise impermissible in law.

---