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

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 36/2021 seeking a declaration of ownership over land measuring 6 acres and 2 guntas, a declaration that a sale deed dated 5 April 2019—allegedly executed under a GPA—was null and void and not binding on them, and delivery of possession

After issues had been framed and the matter was posted for recording evidence, they applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add pleadings and a prayer for mesne profits, alleging that the defendant company was using the land for commercial solar-energy generation

The trial court allowed the amendment on 1 March 2023. The defendant challenged that order by writ petition, contending that the amendment would change the suit’s nature and cause prejudice, particularly given its investment in the solar plant

1. Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to claim mesne profits for the defendant’s alleged use of the suit property

2. Whether the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit or caused prejudice to the defendant

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, ordinarily adopting a liberal approach where the opposite party can be compensated and no injustice or prejudice results

Relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, the Court noted that amendments should generally be allowed for effective adjudication, but may be refused where, among other things, they withdraw an admission conferring a right, introduce a time-barred claim that defeats an accrued right, completely change the suit’s nature, are mala fide, or deprive the other side of a valid defence

The Court also relied on Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, reiterating that courts should avoid a hyper-technical approach and that amendments are ordinarily allowed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, subject to fairness and absence of prejudice

The Court treated the proposed mesne-profits claim as consequential to the existing claims for ownership, invalidity of the sale deed, and possession.

It reasoned that the amendment added a claim arising from the alleged use of the same suit property for solar-energy generation; it did not introduce a new case or alter the suit’s essential nature

The defendant had not demonstrated how the amendment would prejudice its defence. Applying the cited principles, the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s decision

The writ petition was rejected