Amendments based on subsequent events must be allowed to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit for the removal of encroachment and restoration of possession regarding 1,596 sq. ft. of land in Village Karmeta

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, alleging that the respondents had further encroached upon the land, totaling 3,496 sq. ft.

Following a demarcation by the Tahsildar on 10.01.2017—conducted pursuant to a High Court order in a related revision—the petitioners sought to amend the plaint to reflect the findings of the demarcation report

The Trial Court, via orders dated 24.01.2017 and 25.01.2017, allowed the demarcation report to be taken on record under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC but rejected the application to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

The petitioners challenged this rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by refusing an amendment to the plaint based on subsequent events (further encroachment) confirmed by a demarcation report already taken on record

2. Whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit or is necessary for the effective adjudication of the controversy

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which mandates that all amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy shall be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice to the other side

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builder Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 1, which establishes that courts should adopt a liberal, non-hypertechnical approach toward amendments that avoid multiplicity of proceedings and address subsequent events

Kamla Bai v. Preeti Raizada 2010 (2) MPLJ 300, affirming the court’s power to take note of subsequent events to mould relief and ensure complete justice

The High Court observed that the Trial Court's position was contradictory; while it accepted the demarcation report as evidence under Order 7 Rule 14, it barred the petitioners from pleading the facts arising from that very report

The Court reasoned that the amendment was based on "subsequent events"—the additional encroachment occurring during the litigation—and that such an amendment does not alter the fundamental nature of a suit for possession and removal of encroachment

Applying the principles from Sanjeev Builder, the Court determined that the amendment was essential for a "fair and proper adjudication" of the dispute

The Court found that the Trial Court's refusal to allow the amendment despite the evidence being on record constituted perversity and a jurisdictional error

The Court held that amendments arising from subsequent events which do not change the nature of the suit and aid in effective adjudication must be permitted

The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was formally allowed, and the Trial Court was directed to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint accordingly