Courts Should Liberally Allow Pre-Trial Amendments to Suit Schedule Boundaries to Resolve Real Controversies

The appellants filed a suit (O.S. No. 52/2016) for permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from interfering with their possession of agricultural land in survey numbers 19/2 and 18/5.

While trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction, the appellants later filed I.A. No. 229/2017 to amend the plaint schedule boundaries, asserting that boundaries for survey number 18/5 were omitted due to an inadvertent error discovered after the respondent filed a written statement.

The Trial Court allowed the amendment, noting it caused no prejudice as the respondent could file additional pleadings.

However, the High Court of Telangana set aside these orders, holding that the amendment was not bona fide, would change the nature of the property, and introduced a new cause of action.

1. Whether the proposed amendment to the suit schedule boundaries was necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

2. Whether the amendment could be allowed without causing injustice or prejudice to the respondent.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the amendment of pleadings.

The rule grants courts discretion to allow amendments at any stage if they are necessary for determining the real controversy, provided that after the trial commences, a "due diligence" test must be met.

The Court emphasized the settled legal principle that a liberal approach—rather than a technical one—should be adopted to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the Trial Court's decision to allow the amendment was correct because the correction of erroneous or omitted boundaries is essential to resolve the primary controversy in an injunction suit—specifically, whether the appellants are entitled to protection over the exact suit property.

The Court observed that since the application was filed before the trial commenced, the "due diligence" proviso was not a bar.

It further noted that the High Court erred in characterizing the amendment as mala fide or as changing the nature of the suit; rather, any potential prejudice to the respondent was mitigated by his right to file an additional written statement.

The Court held that the High Court’s technical approach defeated the objective of Rule 17.

The Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 12.06.2023 and restored the Trial Court's orders dated 28.03.2019 and 20.12.2022.

The amendment to the plaint and the temporary injunction application was allowed, and the parties were directed to proceed with the adjudication of the suit in accordance with law.