Admission of a relied-upon document supports allowing a plaint amendment based on its contents.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 168 of 2012, sought a declaration of title and consequential injunction.

The defendants disputed the description of the suit property.

After an earlier amendment to the property boundaries had been allowed, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. VII under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint and I.A. No. VIII under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to produce a Civil Engineer’s sketch.

Both applications were filed while PW2’s deposition was being recorded.

The trial court allowed production of the sketch, noting it was relevant to considering the amendment application, but separately rejected the amendment application.

The plaintiffs challenged that rejection in the writ petition.

Order VII Rule 14 CPC concerns documents on which the plaintiff sues or relies; under sub-rule (3), a document omitted from the prescribed list cannot be received in evidence without the court’s leave.

The court reasoned that once leave to produce such a document had been granted, the document could be considered as the basis for the plaintiff’s case.

The amendment application was under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The judgment did not set out a separate test under that rule or rely on a precedent as the basis of its decision; Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan was cited by the petitioners.

The trial court had allowed the sketch to be placed on record and had expressly observed that it was important to consider that document when deciding the amendment application.

In those circumstances, the High Court found it incongruous that the plaint could not be amended to incorporate averments based on the same sketch, particularly since the trial court had not properly considered its earlier order allowing the document.

The defendants would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement and raise legally available defences.

Although the amendment application was delayed, the court held that the delay could be addressed by imposing costs rather than refusing the amendment.

It allowed the plaint amendment subject to the petitioners paying ₹15,000 in costs to the respondents within two weeks.

The respondents were given liberty to file an additional written statement and raise all defences available in law.