Amendment of plaint in representative capacity allowed where the cause of action remains unchanged and no legal prejudice results.

Amendment of a plaint may be permitted under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC where it is necessary to decide the real controversy and does not alter the underlying cause of action. Converting an individual suit into one in a representative capacity, or impleading a brother as co-plaintiff, was treated as consistent with the same claim because the basic facts and relief remained unchanged. The court also noted that prior knowledge of the facts, possible loss of a limitation defence, delay, negligence, or even inaccurate statements in the amendment request do not justify refusal if no legal prejudice or injustice is caused to the other side. The refusal order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint should be amended to enable the plaintiff to sue in a representative capacity as manager of the joint family and implead his brother as a co-plaintiff, without introducing a new case or altering the cause of action.

Analysis: Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers wide power to permit amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. An amendment converting an individual suit into one in a representative capacity does not, by itself, change the cause of action where the underlying claim remains the same. The mere fact that the facts sought to be introduced were already known to the plaintiff, or that the defendant may lose a possible plea of limitation, is not a sufficient ground to refuse amendment if no legal prejudice is caused. Delay, negligence, or even false statements in the application do not by themselves justify refusal when the amendment can be allowed without injustice to the other side.

Conclusion: The amendment ought to have been allowed, and the refusal order was rightly set aside in revision.

---