Amendments introducing a new agreement and cause of action altering the suit’s nature are impermissible.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning a shop, alleging an oral agreement to purchase it for ₹5 lakh and payment in instalments.

Before evidence commenced, he applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to seek specific performance.

The proposed amendments included pleading an agreement dated 7 May 2019, revised payment particulars, termination of the tenancy, changes to valuation and court fee, and deletion of the State as a party.

The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendments would change the nature of the suit.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the proposed amendments were necessary and permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, or instead changed the nature of the suit by introducing a new case.

2. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the amendment application disclosed a jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real controversy, ordinarily requiring a liberal approach—particularly before trial—where the opposing party suffers no irremediable prejudice.

However, an amendment may be refused where it introduces a time-barred claim, changes the nature of the suit, raises a new cause of action foreign to the original pleadings, or deprives the other side of a valid defence; an amendment confined to relief based on facts already pleaded will ordinarily be allowed (LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, as set out at para. 8).

Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, (2022) 8 SCC 145, likewise cautions against amendments that change the suit’s nature.

T.L. Muddukrishana v. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao, (1997) 2 SCC 611, establishes that limitation for specific performance runs from the date fixed for performance and, in the circumstances considered there, supported refusal of an amendment introducing that relief after limitation had expired.

Article 227 confers limited supervisory jurisdiction, not appellate authority to reappreciate or substitute the subordinate court’s decision; a possible view is ordinarily not disturbed.

The Court found that the proposed amendments went beyond changing the relief clause: they introduced a 2019 agreement, new payment particulars and a new cause of action, none of which had a foundation in the original plaint.

The alleged facts were within the plaintiff’s knowledge when the suit was filed, and no subsequent event or other explanation for their omission was identified.

The Court also noted inconsistent pleaded or asserted dates for performance and concluded that allowing the amendments would change the suit’s basic nature and unsettle the defendants’ available defences.

Applying the principles in Sanjeev Builders and Asian Hotels, it held that the trial court’s refusal was justified; no jurisdictional error or perversity warranted Article 227 intervention.

It made no order as to costs, closed any pending applications, vacated the stay of proceedings in the suit, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court.