Delay alone is no ground to disallow an amendment necessary for the effective adjudication of a dispute.

The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for amendment of the plaint in Case No. 10-A/2016.

On 08.05.2017, the Civil Judge Class II, Hoshangabad, dismissed the application.

Although the trial Court acknowledged the proposed amendment was relevant to the subject matter, it rejected the prayer on the grounds of limitation and delay, noting that issues had already been framed on 25.02.2016.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, contending the amendment was necessary for the adjudication of the lis and did not change the nature of the suit.

1. Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the amendment application solely on the grounds of delay and limitation despite finding the amendment relevant to the controversy

2. Whether an amendment to pleadings can be allowed after the commencement of trial/framing of issues to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which mandates that all amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy shall be allowed provided they do not cause injustice to the other side.

Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128), which held that delay alone is not a valid ground to disallow an amendment.

Courts should avoid a hyper-technical approach, favoring a liberal stance to aid in rendering a satisfactory decision.

The High Court observed that the trial Court had explicitly recognized the relevancy of the proposed amendment to the dispute.

It reasoned that since the case was only at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and the amendment did not alter the nature of the litigation, the trial Court’s refusal based on the timing of the application was improper.

Applying the Sanjeev Builders framework, the Court noted that the amendment was essential for a "pin-pointed" consideration of the dispute and would prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court emphasized that unless an amendment introduces a time-barred claim that divests the opponent of a valuable right or causes irreparable prejudice, it should be allowed to ensure a proper adjudication of the controversy.

It set aside the order dated 08.05.2017 and allowed the petitioner’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

The petitioner was permitted to carry out the amendment in the plaint and directed to produce the High Court's order before the trial Court on the next scheduled date; the petition was allowed.