Amendments to Suit Valuation Should Be Liberally Allowed Under Order 6 Rule 17 Prior to Framing of Issues

The Petitioner (Party-in-Person) challenged three orders passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 4 of 2024 (formerly RCS No. 29 of 2023) pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Modasa

These included: (i) an order dated 21.01.2026 under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC regarding court fees; and (ii) orders dated 01.05.2025 passed below Exhibit-60 and Exhibit-61, which allowed the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 2) to submit and subsequently carry out an amendment to the suit valuation

During proceedings, the Petitioner withdrew the challenge to the Order 7 Rule 11(b) decree to pursue a revision application under Section 115 of the CPC

The remaining challenge pertained to the high court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 regarding the amendment of the valuation

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the Plaintiff to amend the suit valuation prior to the framing of issues

2. Whether the Petitioner, as a defendant, is prejudiced by an amendment that increases the suit valuation, even if the Petitioner contends the valuation remains numerically incorrect

The Court applied Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the amendment of pleadings.

The core principle is that amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause irreparable prejudice to the opposing party

The Court noted that the "proviso" to Order 6 Rule 17, which restricts amendments after the commencement of trial, did not apply as the suit was still at the pleadings stage

the Court reaffirmed that a party cannot be prohibited from filing applications under the law

The Court reasoned that the order below Exhibit-60 was merely procedural, granting the Plaintiff permission to file an amendment application, which is a right inherent to any litigant

Regarding Exhibit-61, the Court found that since the application was filed prior to the framing of issues, the Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion to allow the amendment liberally

The Court dismissed the Petitioner’s claim of prejudice, noting that if the Petitioner believes the valuation—even after the amendment—is still incorrect (claiming it should be Rs. 63 lakh instead of Rs. 57 lakh), the Petitioner retains the right to file a separate application for the correct valuation under the law

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227

It held that amendments to suit valuations at the pre-trial stage are permissible and do not prejudice the defendant, who remains free to challenge the accuracy of the revised valuation via a separate application before the Trial Court

The prayer regarding the Order 7 Rule 11(b) challenge was disposed of as "not pressed" with liberty to file a revision under Section 115 CPC. No costs were awarded.