Amendment of plaint should be decided before rejection application when the proposed change was filed earlier and remains relevant.

An amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 should be considered before an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) where the amendment was sought first. The court reasoned that if the plaint were rejected at the threshold, the plaintiff would not be barred from filing a fresh plaint on the same cause of action, including the proposed amendment, so deciding amendment first would serve a useful purpose and would not amount to advancing the trial. The trial court's refusal to consider the amendment application first was therefore unsustainable, and the amendment request had to be decided on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to be decided before the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The plaintiff had sought amendment of the plaint before the application for rejection of plaint was taken up. The Court held that if the plaint were first rejected under Order VII Rule 11, the plaintiff would not be precluded from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action, including the proposed amendment. On that basis, deciding the amendment application first would serve a purpose and would not amount to proceeding with the trial. The reliance placed on the contrary proposition was held to be inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The trial court erred in refusing to consider the amendment application before the rejection application, and the order rejecting the plaintiff's request was unsustainable. The petitioner succeeded, and the amendment application was directed to be decided first on its own merits.

---