Amendment of pleadings may be refused when it alters the suit's character and masks partial withdrawal of claims.

Amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is generally permitted, but it may be refused where it changes the character of the suit or prejudices the opposite party. Here, the plaintiff sought to give up one monetary component while continuing damages on the same transaction, in a manner linked to parallel proceedings and an inconsistent stance between rescission and enforcement. The court treated the request as a disguised withdrawal of part of the claim, especially because it was made after the connected tribunal proceedings had advanced and directions had been issued to remove overlapping reliefs. The amendment was therefore held not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by giving up one component of the monetary claim while continuing to pursue damages, was liable to be rejected on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit, prejudice the defendant, and operate as a disguised attempt to withdraw part of the claim to facilitate parallel proceedings.

Analysis: Amendment of pleadings is normally to be allowed, but it may be refused where it alters the nature or character of the lis or causes prejudice to the opposite party. The proposed amendment was not a simple reduction of claim: it was linked to the plaintiff's attempt to proceed with the company petition while retaining the damages claim based on the same transaction, thereby creating an inconsistent stance between rescission and enforcement. The sequence of events showed that the application was moved only after the proceedings before the company tribunal had progressed and directions were issued to amend the suit and give up overlapping reliefs. In that setting, the Court treated the application as effectively seeking withdrawal of a part of the claim in disguise, rather than a neutral amendment necessary for deciding the real controversy.

Conclusion: The amendment application was held to be not maintainable in the circumstances and was dismissed.

---