An amendment introducing alternative relief based on a subsequent event does not change the nature of the suit.

The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 174 of 2008 after the Corporation demolished Shop No. 69, which had been allotted to his father.

He sought restoration of the shop and damages.

During the suit, the Corporation passed resolutions in June 2013 to allot alternative sites to affected persons.

After the plaintiff’s representations for an alternative site were not acted upon, he sought to amend the plaint to claim that relief.

The trial court rejected the application, finding that the amendment changed the suit’s nature and introduced a fresh cause of action.

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

Whether the proposed alternative relief, based on the Corporation’s resolutions passed during the suit, changed the nature of the suit or introduced a wholly new cause of action so as to bar amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Whether the amendment should be refused as time-barred, or whether limitation could be left for determination at trial.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real controversy, subject to considerations including injustice, prejudice, limitation, mala fides, and a change in the nature of the suit.

In Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559, the Supreme Court held that an amendment introducing a cause of action arising during the suit may be allowed where it does not alter the suit’s basic structure and avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Supreme Court stated that amendments should generally be allowed where necessary for effective adjudication or to avoid multiple proceedings, while an arguable limitation issue may be decided at trial; an amendment should ordinarily be refused if it sets up an entirely new case or changes the nature of the suit.

Article 227 empowers the High Court to correct a jurisdictional error by the subordinate court.

The original suit concerned the consequences of the demolition of the plaintiff’s shop and his claim to obtain a place of business from the Corporation.

The proposed alternative relief arose from the Corporation’s subsequent policy decision to allot sites to affected persons, and sought an alternative remedy connected to the original dispute.

The Court held that although the amendment changed the relief sought, it did not change the suit’s nature or introduce a wholly different cause of action; allowing it would also avoid separate proceedings.

The trial court had not found the amendment time-barred.

Since limitation was an arguable mixed question of fact and law, the Corporation remained free to raise that defence at trial.

It quashed the order dated 2 September 2025 and allowed the amendment.

The plaintiff was directed to file the amended plaint within two weeks of receiving the order, and the Corporation was permitted to file a written statement in response and raise its limitation defence at trial.

The petition was allowed, the Rule made absolute to that extent, and no order as to costs was made.