Belated amendments necessary for effective adjudication are permissible provided they do not alter the suit’s fundamental character.

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner (defendant) on the grounds of bona fide requirement under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, seeking the premises to conduct dance and music classes following her retirement

After issues were framed and the cross-examination of the defendant's witness (DW-1) was completed, the respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to amend the plaint

The petitioner opposed the application, arguing it was filed at a belated stage without "due diligence" and would change the nature of the suit

The Trial Court allowed the amendment on September 9, 2025, leading the petitioner to challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order allowing the amendment of the plaint after the commencement of trial and cross-examination of a witness was legally sustainable under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC

2. Whether the proposed amendments fundamentally altered the nature of the suit for eviction

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which grants courts the discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings to resolve the real controversy between parties

Supreme Court precedent in Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Others (2022), which established that amendments should be allowed liberally if they do not change the nature of the suit and are necessary for effective adjudication, even in cases of delay

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

The Court noted that the core purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 is to ensure the "real questions in controversy" are decided

The Court reasoned that although the trial had advanced to the stage of the defendant's evidence, the amendments were intended to clarify pleadings and introduce relevant facts for the final determination of the eviction dispute

The Court found that the amendments did not alter the "basic character" of the eviction suit

Applying the ratio of Sanjeev Builders, the Court held that since the amendments were necessary for a just and effective adjudication, they could not be rejected solely on the grounds of delay or the stage of the trial

It concluded that the Trial Court had properly applied its judicial mind to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings

The High Court affirmed that the nature of the suit remained unchanged and the amendments were essential for resolving the dispute

The miscellaneous petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's order dated September 9, 2025

No order as to costs was made