LIBERAL AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS PERMISSIBLE TO INCORPORATE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND PREVENT MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS

The original plaintiff, Smt. Kanchan Lata, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner/defendant under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), and 12(1)(o) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died (17-05-2021), and her legal heirs (LRs) were impleaded.

The LRs moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC to amend the plaint, asserting that under a Will, the property devolved to respondent No. 3, who requires it for her own residence.

The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order dated 23-04-2026, which allowed the amendment, contending it changed the nature of the suit from commercial to residential and was intended to harass her.

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and whether such amendment changes the nature of the suit.

2. Whether the amendment was necessary for the effective adjudication of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The court primarily applied Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, governing the amendment of pleadings.

Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindu) (2024), which emphasizes a liberal approach to amendments to determine the real question in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice or withdraw a clear admission.

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022), outlining that amendments should be allowed if they avoid multiplicity of proceedings and arise from subsequent events.

The court found that the amendment was necessitated by a subsequent event—the death of the original plaintiff—which occurred during the pendency of the suit.

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the nature of the suit had changed; it noted that the original plaint already alleged the tenant was using residential premises for commercial purposes, and the amendment merely specified the LRs' residential need.

Since the trial had not yet commenced (evidence stage), the court reasoned that the petitioner would have ample opportunity to file a rebuttal, thus suffering no prejudice.

Applying the principles from Dinesh Goyal, the court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction to ensure effective adjudication and prevent further litigation.

The court affirmed the decision to allow the amendment as it was based on subsequent events and necessary for the determination of the controversy. The petition was disposed of with no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a consequential amendment to her written statement.