Amendment applications may still be heard after arguments on judgment on admissions are reserved, since proceedings remain open.

An amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC may be considered even after arguments on an application for judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 have been heard, because reservation of orders on the latter does not amount to final disposal of the suit. The procedural stage remains open until a final pronouncement is made, and the trial court may hear the amendment request first where it serves determination of the real controversy between the parties. The challenge to that course was rejected, and the court's decision to take up the amendment application was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be taken up for hearing after arguments had been heard on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the matter had been reserved for orders; (ii) Whether the trial court erred in treating the matter as still open for consideration on the amendment application notwithstanding the pending application for judgment on admissions.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be taken up for hearing after arguments had been heard on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the matter had been reserved for orders.

Analysis: The expressions used in the two provisions are materially different. Order XII Rule 6 empowers the Court to act at any stage of the suit, while Order VI Rule 17 also permits amendment at any stage of the proceedings, subject to the governing limitations. A matter reserved for orders on an application for judgment on admissions is not necessarily concluded in the sense of a final judgment having been pronounced. An application under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and may result either in a decree or in continuation of the suit. Since the stage had not reached final pronouncement, the amendment application could still be considered.

Conclusion: Yes. The application under Order VI Rule 17 could be heard even after arguments on Order XII Rule 6 had been concluded.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial court erred in treating the matter as still open for consideration on the amendment application notwithstanding the pending application for judgment on admissions.

Analysis: The distinction between a hearing and the procedural stage of the suit was applied to hold that reservation of orders on the judgment-on-admissions application did not bar consideration of the amendment request. The Court also noted that an application for amendment serves the object of determining the real controversy between the parties, and the trial court was therefore justified in first hearing the amendment application before deciding the request for judgment on admissions.

Conclusion: No. The trial court committed no error in taking up the amendment application and the challenge to that course failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were without merit, and the trial court's decision to hear the amendment application despite the prior hearing on judgment on admissions was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be considered at any stage of the proceedings, including after arguments on an application under Order XII Rule 6 have been heard, because reservation of orders on that application does not amount to final disposal of the suit or bar further procedural consideration.

---