Supreme Court Allows Amendment to Plaint: Broad Power for Justice

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a case concerning the rejection of an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17. The appellant sought to amend the plaint to add new paragraphs related to unauthorized entry and demolition of property by the respondents. The trial court and High Court rejected the amendment on grounds of introducing a new case, changing the nature of the suit, and limitation bar. The Supreme Court emphasized the broad power to allow amendments in the interest of justice and overturned the rejection, permitting the appellant to amend the plaint upon payment of costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for amendment of plaint u/r Order 6 Rule 17 - Rejection by trial court - Dismissal by High Court - Grounds of rejection: Introduction of new case and cause of action, change in nature of suit, limitation bar.

Summary:

The appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents to prevent demolition of the compound wall on the suit property. The respondents allegedly entered the appellant's house without authorization and demolished the wall, also damaging the entrance gate. The appellant applied for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 to add new paragraphs, which was rejected by the trial court and the High Court, citing reasons like introducing a new case, changing the nature of the suit, and being barred by limitation.

Referring to legal precedents, the Supreme Court emphasized the purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, stating that the power to allow amendments is broad and can be exercised at any stage in the interest of justice. While amendments cannot be claimed as a right, a liberal approach should be adopted to avoid unnecessary litigation. The Court noted that the amendment sought in this case should not have been declined, as its purpose was to minimize litigation. The issue of limitation, raised in the context of the new paragraphs, could be addressed as a separate matter after allowing the requested amendment.

Based on the legal principles discussed, the Supreme Court found the impugned order unsustainable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the amendment and permitting the appellant to amend the plaint upon payment of costs.

---