Delay alone cannot justify rejecting a necessary amendment to written pleadings.

The petitioner/defendant challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Tenth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior, in RCS-A/393/2022, rejecting his application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement.

The underlying suit was for declaration and permanent injunction, in which the petitioner had already filed a written statement disputing the plaintiffs’ claim.

During the suit, the petitioner sought to place on record orders passed by the High Court in W.P. Nos. 181/2021 and 226/2022; those documents were taken on record. He thereafter sought amendment of the written statement to incorporate pleadings relating to those documents.

The trial court rejected the amendment application solely on the ground that the petitioner had not explained why the proposed pleadings were not included when the written statement was originally filed.

The respondents opposed the amendment, contending that the relevant facts were within the petitioner’s knowledge, that issues had already been framed on 13.08.2025, and that the amendment was unnecessary.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the written statement solely on the ground of delay or failure to explain the omission at the time of filing the original written statement?

2. Whether the proposed amendment, being connected with documents already taken on record, was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute and would cause impermissible prejudice to the plaintiffs?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to the proviso concerning due diligence after commencement of trial.

Relying principally on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court held that amendments necessary for effective and proper adjudication should ordinarily be allowed unless they cause injustice or prejudice, introduce a time-barred claim, change the nature of the suit, are mala fide, or withdraw a clear admission conferring a right on the opposite party.

The Court also relied on North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by LRs., (2008) 8 SCC 511, for the principle that an amendment should be refused only where the opposite party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had originally been correct and would suffer injury incapable of compensation through costs.

Delay alone is not a sufficient ground to reject an amendment, particularly where the opposite party can be compensated by costs and consequential amendments or further evidence remain available.

The High Court found that the proposed amendment was intended to elaborate and substantiate documents that the trial court had already permitted the petitioner to bring on record.

Although the trial had commenced, the trial court had not held that the amendment was unnecessary for adjudication, mala fide, time-barred, or likely to cause prejudice to the plaintiffs; it rejected the application only because the petitioner had not explained the omission from the original written statement.

Applying the liberal approach mandated in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders, the Court held that the amendment would assist in determining the real controversy and would not irreparably prejudice the plaintiffs, particularly since only the plaintiff’s examination-in-chief had been conducted and the plaintiffs could seek consequential amendments and lead further evidence.

Accordingly, the trial court’s reliance on delay and lack of explanation, without examining necessity and prejudice, was held inconsistent with the governing principles under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The order dated 04.08.2026 rejecting the amendment application was set aside, and the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed subject to payment of costs of ₹2,500 to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were granted liberty to seek consequential amendments in their pleadings.

The petitioner was permitted to incorporate the amendment upon furnishing proof of payment of costs.

The trial court was directed to endeavour to dispose of the pending suit expeditiously, and the parties were cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of; pending applications, if any, were closed.