Clarificatory amendments are permissible at any stage of proceedings to determine the real question in controversy.

Respondent No. 3, a confirmed Assistant Teacher, challenged his 2019 resignation before the School Tribunal, Amravati, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977

At the stage of final arguments, Respondent No. 3 filed an application to amend the memorandum of appeal to clarify that the document dated 11.07.2019 was a "notice of resignation" rather than a "resignation letter"

The School Tribunal allowed the amendment on 02.09.2025

The Petitioners (Management) challenged this order, contending that the amendment was sought at a belated stage without the Respondent demonstrating "due diligence" as mandated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

1. Whether an amendment to pleadings can be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC after the conclusion of final arguments but before judgment

2. Whether the "due diligence" requirement in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 acts as an absolute jurisdictional bar against clarificatory amendments necessary for deciding the real controversy

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which empowers courts to allow amendments "at any stage of the proceedings" if necessary for determining the real question in controversy

It interpreted the proviso to Rule 17, which generally restricts post-trial amendments unless "due diligence" is shown

The court relied on the "real controversy test" established in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, asserting that the rule of amendment is a rule of justice, equity, and good conscience

It further applied the precedent from Baburao Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd., which holds that "at any stage" includes the period when a case is reserved for judgment

The court reasoned that the phrase "at any stage of the proceedings" must be construed broadly to include any time before the pronouncement of judgment, as the court retains seisin over the matter until then

While acknowledging that the Respondent did not explicitly prove due diligence, the court found the amendment to be purely clarificatory and consistent with documents already on record

The court determined that the "real controversy test" is the cardinal rule; if an amendment is essential to resolve the actual dispute and does not introduce a new case or cause prejudice to the opponent, the necessity of the amendment outweighs a hyper-technical application of the due diligence proviso

Since the amendment merely refined existing pleadings to match undisputed documents, it was necessary for a complete adjudication

It held that courts possess the jurisdiction to allow clarificatory amendments even after final arguments to subserve the ends of justice and prevent multiplicity of litigation

The court concluded that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion was sound and not perverse

Interim relief was extended for four weeks to permit the Petitioners to seek further legal remedies