An appellate court may allow pleading amendments while preserving the opposing party’s opportunity to respond.

Urmila Sethi, the plaintiff before the trial court and appellant in RFA No. 124 of 2016, sought to amend her plaint to specify the boundary of the disputed plot.

An earlier amendment application had been rejected; after proceedings in CMP No. 805 of 2018, the appellate court considered a further application dated 14 May 2018 and allowed it, subject to costs of ₹1,000.

Ranjeeta Pani, the defendant and respondent in the appeal, challenged that order, arguing that the applicant had not pleaded due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC

1. Whether an amendment to pleadings could be considered at the appellate stage, given that an appeal is a continuation of the suit

2. Whether the amendment could be allowed despite the objection that the applicant had not pleaded due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy.

Its proviso restricts amendments after commencement of trial unless the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.

The court considering the application must reach that conclusion.

An appeal is a continuation of the suit, and an amendment may be considered at the appellate stage.

The High Court accepted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 required consideration of due diligence, but stated that the duty to reach the relevant conclusion rested on the court deciding the amendment application.

It considered that specifying the plot boundary would require the plaintiff-appellant to adduce evidence, with the burden of proof remaining on her.

The defendant-respondent would have the opportunity to rebut that evidence, adduce her own evidence, and file an additional written statement.

The Court therefore left the amendment in place while increasing the costs.

The costs payable to Ranjeeta Pani were enhanced from ₹1,000 to ₹5,000, payable within two weeks of resumption of proceedings before the court hearing the appeal.

The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ contentions in the appeal.