Necessary amendments may be allowed despite delay if they cause no prejudice.

The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking recovery and restitution of earnest money allegedly paid under an agreement dated 29 August 2019 concerning the sale of land measuring 43,730 square yards in the revenue estate of Burari, Delhi, for a total consideration of ₹63,69,71,180.

The earnest money was stated to be ₹5,00,50,000.

By I.A. 14291/2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to clarify that they were earmarked to acquire only a 55% share in the land and consequently reduce their recovery claim to ₹2,75,27,500.

The Court noted that the suit had been instituted in 2021 and that an earlier amendment application, I.A. 12924/2022, had already been allowed, indicating delay or lack of diligence in seeking the present amendment.

Whether the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to confine their recovery claim to their alleged 55% share was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Whether the delay or lack of diligence in seeking the amendment constituted sufficient reason to refuse the application, particularly where the amendment did not prejudice the defendants.

Whether the amendment should be allowed subject to costs.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, under which amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy are ordinarily to be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party.

Relying on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that an amendment should be permitted when required for the effective and proper adjudication of the controversy and for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, so long as it does not cause injustice, withdraw a clear admission conferring a right on the other side, or introduce a time-barred claim that defeats an accrued right.

The Court also recognised that delay and absence of due diligence may justify imposing costs, even where the amendment itself is legally permissible.

The proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action; rather, it clarified the plaintiffs’ alleged entitlement and reduced the monetary claim from ₹5,00,50,000 to ₹2,75,27,500, corresponding to their stated 55% share.

The amendment was therefore considered relevant to determining the actual extent of the plaintiffs’ claim and facilitating complete adjudication.

Although the Court found that the plaintiffs had been lacking in diligence, particularly because the suit was filed in 2021 and an earlier amendment had already been allowed, it held that the delay did not warrant rejection of the amendment because no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.

In accordance with the principles in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders, the Court balanced the need for procedural correction and effective adjudication against the plaintiffs’ lapse by allowing the amendment subject to costs.

The amendment was made subject to costs of ₹5,000 payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

The amended plaint was directed to be taken on record, and the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 16 September 2026, the date already fixed.