A plaint may be amended to add possession relief arising from the same pleaded transaction.

The plaintiffs, owners of the suit property, entered into a Joint Development Agreement and executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendants.

They pleaded that the defendants failed to complete construction and hand over the plaintiffs’ agreed share, including 17 residential units, and sought damages of Rs.30,20,000.

When the suit had reached the plaintiffs’ reply arguments, they applied under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to add a prayer for vacant possession of an additional constructed area of 862 sq. ft.

The Trial Court rejected the application, reasoning that the new relief would change the suit’s nature and might be barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in finding that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit.

2. Whether the proposed amendment should be rejected because it was sought belatedly or might be barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

3. Whether the Trial Court’s order warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendments ordinarily should be allowed when necessary to determine the real controversy, unless they cause injustice or prejudice, introduce a wholly new or inconsistent case, are mala fide, or seek a claim clearly barred by limitation.

After trial has commenced, the proviso requires consideration of due diligence; delay alone does not automatically require rejection.

The Court relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1; Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559; and Basavaraj v. Indira, (2024) 3 SCC 705.

Objections under Order II Rule 2 and Order VII Rule 3 CPC, including limitation and property identification, may be considered after amendment and completion of pleadings; the requisite court fee must be paid for the additional relief.

The Court found that the original plaint already pleaded the development agreement, the plaintiffs’ entitlement to constructed units, and the defendants’ failure to complete and hand over that share.

The possession claim therefore arose from the same transaction and foundational facts, did not replace the damages claim, and would not introduce an altogether new case.

Although the amendment was sought at an advanced stage, the Court held that the defendants could be protected by costs and an opportunity to respond; the possible bars under Order II Rule 2, limitation, and Order VII Rule 3 were not grounds to reject the amendment at that stage.

The Trial Court had consequently erred in treating the different form of relief as necessarily changing the suit’s character.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and allowed the amendment application, subject to the plaintiffs carrying out the amendment and paying the required court fee.

The defendants were permitted to file an additional written statement and cross-examine the plaintiffs on the amended matters; all substantive objections and defences were kept open.