Belated amendments to disputed property descriptions may be refused for lack of explanation and resulting prejudice.

The petitioner-plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 444/2012 seeking declaration, possession and mandatory injunction concerning alleged encroachment on the suit property.

The defendants disputed the property’s measurements, boundaries and description, and those matters were explored in cross-examination.

After the suit had been posted for pronouncement of judgment, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to alter the property’s measurements, boundaries and description.

The trial court rejected the application, and the plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the amendment jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Although amendment applications are ordinarily considered liberally, the discretion must account for the nature of the proposed amendment, the stage of the proceedings, prejudice to the opposing party and the explanation for delay.

A belated application unsupported by a satisfactory explanation may be refused where the amendment risks prejudice or affects the course of adjudication.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The proposed amendment concerned matters already disputed in the pleadings and examined in cross-examination.

The application was made when the suit was ready for judgment, yet the supporting affidavit did not adequately explain why the alleged discrepancies could not have been addressed earlier.

In those circumstances, the defendants’ concern that the amendment would undermine the effect of the cross-examination and prejudice their position was material.

The Court therefore found the trial court’s refusal consistent with the relevant discretionary considerations.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.