A consequential mesne-profits claim may be added where it neither changes the suit nor prejudices the defendant.

The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 34/2021 seeking a declaration of ownership over land measuring 9 acres 31 guntas, a declaration that a sale deed dated 26 July 2019 was null and void and not binding on her, and recovery of possession.

After issues had been framed and the suit was posted for the plaintiff’s evidence, she applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add factual averments and a prayer for mesne profits, with interest, alleging that the petitioner-defendant had used the land for commercial solar-energy generation.

The petitioner opposed the amendment, arguing that it would change the suit’s nature and prejudice it, including in light of its investment in the solar plant.

The Trial Court allowed the amendment on 1 March 2023; the petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint to add a claim for mesne profits and interest.

2. Whether the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit, introduced a new case or cause of action, or caused prejudice to the defendant.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, ordinarily taking a liberal approach where the other party can be compensated by costs; an amendment may be refused if it causes injustice or prejudice, withdraws a clear admission, raises a time-barred claim that divests an accrued right, completely changes the suit’s nature, is mala fide, or deprives the other side 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, the latter quoting State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India, (2011) 12 SCC 268, on the liberal, justice-oriented approach to amendments intended to facilitate adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court treated the mesne-profits claim as consequential to the existing claims for ownership, invalidity of the sale deed, and possession—not as a new case or cause of action.

Because the requested relief concerned the alleged commercial use of the same suit property and depended on the outcome of the principal claims, the amendment did not alter the suit’s nature.

The petitioner had not demonstrated how the amendment would cause prejudice or impair a valid defence; accordingly, the Trial Court’s decision was consistent with the principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The writ petition was rejected as meritless.