A court may refuse issue amendments after plaintiff’s evidence when existing issues cover the controversy.

The petitioner, plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, challenged the trial court’s refusal to amend or add issues under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.

The trial court had framed issues on 29 January 2025; it later allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint on 18 August 2025.

After the plaintiff’s evidence had been recorded and the matter was set for the defendants’ evidence, the plaintiff sought amendment of an existing issue concerning a house and an additional issue concerning the alleged invalidity of a will dated 7 December 2016.

The trial court rejected the application, noting that the parties had earlier had an opportunity to object to the issues and that the plaintiff’s evidence was complete.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to amend an existing issue and frame an additional issue after the plaintiff’s evidence had been recorded.

2. Whether the rejection disclosed illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order 14 Rule 5 CPC empowers a court, at any time before passing a decree, to amend issues or frame additional issues necessary to determine the matters in controversy, and to strike out wrongly framed or introduced issues.

Order 14 Rule 2 CPC generally requires the court to pronounce judgment on all issues, subject to the stated exception for certain preliminary issues of law.

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227; the Court assessed whether the trial court’s order involved illegality or jurisdictional error.

Although Order 14 Rule 5 permits amendment of issues before decree, the High Court found that the trial court had framed sufficient issues to determine the controversy.

The plaintiff had already presented his evidence on the existing issues, knowing his case and the evidence available to him, and the matter had reached the defendants’ evidence stage.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to direct amendment or addition of issues and no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s refusal.

The writ petition was dismissed.