A consequential mesne profits claim may be added if it does not change the suit’s nature or prejudice the defendant.

Chandappa sued for a declaration of ownership over land measuring 16 acres and 28 guntas, a declaration that a sale deed dated 5 April 2019 was void and not binding on him, and recovery of possession.

After issues had been framed and the suit was listed for evidence, he applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add pleadings and a prayer for mesne profits, alleging that the defendant had used the land for commercial solar-energy generation.

The Trial Court allowed the amendment. The defendant challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing, among other things, that the amendment changed the suit’s nature and caused prejudice.

1. Whether the proposed amendment seeking mesne profits and interest changed the nature of the suit or introduced a new case or cause of action.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s order allowing the amendment warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy should generally be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party. Amendments may be refused where, among other things, they withdraw a clear admission conferring a right, introduce a time-barred claim that defeats an accrued right, completely change the nature of the suit, are mala fide, or deprive the other party of a valid defence.

The Court relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, and Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, for the principles that courts should ordinarily take a liberal rather than hyper-technical approach to amendments, particularly where prejudice can be addressed, and that amendments should not set up an entirely new case foreign to the original pleadings.

The existing suit already sought declarations concerning ownership and the sale deed, together with recovery of possession. The proposed mesne-profits claim arose from the alleged use of that same land for solar-energy generation and was consequential upon the success of the main claims; it did not, in the Court’s view, introduce a new case or alter the suit’s nature.

The defendant had not demonstrated how the amendment would cause prejudice or impair its defence. Applying the principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court found no basis to disturb the Trial Court’s decision.

It rejected the writ petition as meritless, leaving the Trial Court’s order allowing the amendment in force.