Necessary amendments to pleadings must be allowed liberally to determine the real controversy between parties.

The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding land purchased via registered sale deeds dated 11.10.2018, alleging interference by the defendants

The defendants filed a counterclaim denying the plaintiff’s title and possession.

After the commencement of trial and framing of issues, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to include a prayer for declaration of title

The Trial Court (Third Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vidisha) rejected the application on 06.10.2025, citing delay and the potential reopening of evidence

The petitioner challenged this order, asserting that the amendment was necessary due to the defendants’ denial of title and that he did not intend to reopen evidence

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the grounds of delay and commencement of trial

2. Whether the proposed amendment was necessary for the effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which governs the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings

Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindu) and Ors. (2024), which mandates a liberal approach toward amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022), which established that amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings unless they are mala fide, raise a time-barred claim, or completely change the nature of the suit

The Court observed that the amendment seeking a declaration of title was crucial because the defendants had explicitly challenged the plaintiff’s title in their counterclaim

Applying the "liberal approach" doctrine, the Court reasoned that the Trial Court's rejection based solely on delay was improper

It noted that the petitioner specifically undertook not to reopen evidence, thereby mitigating concerns regarding trial delays or prejudice to the defendants

The Court found that the amendment was essential for a complete adjudication of the dispute and that no legal prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as the core of the dispute—ownership and possession—was already subject to litigation through the counterclaim

The Court held that the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was necessary for determining the true nature of the dispute

It permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint and directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously, ensuring the amendment does not cause undue delay in the suit's final disposal

No order as to costs was made