Amendment seeking rectification of instrument under Section 26, Specific Relief Act, alters nature of declaratory suit.

The petitioners (plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No. 117 of 2013 seeking a declaration of title over Plot No. 430, asserting that an incorrect plot number was mentioned in relevant documents

At the final stage of the trial—after the defendants had concluded their arguments—the plaintiffs filed an amendment petition dated 29.08.2022

The amendment sought to direct the Sub-Registrar to correct a 1970 sale deed by substituting Plot No. 367 with Plot No. 430

The Trial Court (Sub-Judge-I, Jamui) rejected the amendment on 24.11.2022, leading to this challenge under Article 227

1. Whether the proposed amendment to seek rectification of a sale deed is permissible in a declaratory suit at the concluding stage of the trial

2. Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the amendment petition was legally sound based on the nature of the suit and the law of limitation

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the amendment of pleadings and generally restricts amendments after the commencement of trial unless due diligence is shown

Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides the specific legal remedy for the rectification of instruments

The principle that amendments cannot be allowed if they are barred by the Law of Limitation or if they fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit

The Court observed that the suit had reached its "fag end" and the defense's arguments were already complete

It reasoned that the relief sought via amendment—rectification of a 1970 sale deed—is a distinct statutory remedy under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act and cannot be introduced into a simple declaratory suit at such a late stage, as it would change the suit's basic character

The Court agreed with the Trial Court’s finding that the plaintiffs were aware of the facts long ago, making the relief time-barred and prejudicial to the defendants

Since the petitioners failed to meet the "due diligence" threshold required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC for post-trial amendments, the Trial Court’s refusal was deemed proper

The High Court answered the issues by affirming that a time-barred amendment that alters the nature of the suit after arguments have commenced cannot be permitted

The High Court upheld the order dated 24.11.2022 and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Application