Application for plaint amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be rejected merely because the matter is fixed for plaintiff's evidence.

The petitioner, Hanumant Sugar Private Limited, engaged in sugar and molasses production, obtained an insurance policy from the respondents for Rs. 41,50,00,000/- for the period 28.02.2019 to 27.02.2020.

On 29.03.2019, a molasses tank burst due to a chemical reaction, causing substantial loss to the company and damage to factory premises.

The respondent insurance company, after surveyor inspections, rejected the claim, attributing the incident to construction defects and patch repairs, stating the loss was not covered.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed COMMS No. 25/2023 before the Commercial Court at Bhopal seeking compensation.

During evidence preparation, the petitioner noticed that certain necessary pleadings related to the disputed insurance policy and insured instrument were inadvertently omitted from the plaint and consequently filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment.

The learned 8th District Judge, Commercial Court, Bhopal, rejected this application by order dated 12.12.2024, on the ground that the matter had already been fixed for plaintiff’s evidence, implying the trial had commenced.

1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground that the trial had commenced merely because the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence?

2. Whether the proposed amendment, being clarificatory in nature and not altering the suit's character or introducing a new cause of action, ought to have been allowed by the Commercial Court?

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which governs amendments to pleadings and limits amendments after the commencement of trial unless due diligence is shown.

Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, emphasizes that the provisions of CPC as amended by the Act prevail in commercial disputes.

The Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs Manohar Singh & Anr 2006(2) RCR 265*, stating that courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused, and that the trial generally commences when evidence is actually tendered by affidavit and witnesses are subjected to examination, were also considered.

The court found that the Commercial Court adopted an unduly technical approach by rejecting the amendment application, failing to align with the liberal principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

While the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 mandates strict limitations after trial commencement, the court clarified that "trial commenced" in commercial disputes is typically when an affidavit of evidence is filed/tendered or when witnesses are subjected to examination, not merely when the matter is listed for plaintiff's evidence.

In this case, the witnesses had not yet been examined or cross-examined.

The proposed amendment was deemed clarificatory, relating to the insurance policy and insured instrument, and did not alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action; therefore, no serious prejudice would be caused to the defendants if allowed.

This reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court's guidance in *Baldev Singh* emphasizing liberality in granting amendments unless serious injustice occurs.

The impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Commercial Court was set aside, and the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed.