Plaint amendments adding alternative monetary relief are permissible when arising from the same transaction.

Respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 53-A/2023 before the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bemetara, seeking declaration, possession, permanent injunction, and a direction to the petitioner/defendant No. 1 to execute a sale deed pursuant to an agreement dated 08.04.2021 concerning land bearing Khasra Nos. 545/2 and 546/2, measuring 0.1200 hectare, situated at Village Pachbhaiya, District Bemetara.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to include recovery of ₹2,60,000 and ₹2,55,000 allegedly paid under the sale agreement, as an alternative relief.

The trial Court allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by order dated 10.07.2025.

The defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the amendment altered the nature of the suit, was intended to cure an alleged defect in maintainability, and prejudiced his rights.

The defendant also stated that his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC remained undecided.

1. Whether the trial Court committed a jurisdictional error or acted perversely in allowing the plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add an alternative monetary recovery claim.

2. Whether the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit or caused prejudice to the defendant so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors, perversity, or serious procedural irregularity, and not to substitute its view merely because another view is possible.

It further applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which permits amendment of pleadings where the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to the limitations prescribed by the proviso where the trial has commenced.

An alternative or consequential relief arising from the same transaction may ordinarily be added when it does not introduce an entirely unrelated cause of action.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC was only referred to as the provision under which the defendant’s separate maintainability application was pending; it was not adjudicated in the present proceedings.

The High Court found that the original suit itself arose from the agreement dated 08.04.2021 and sought its enforcement, execution of the sale deed, possession, and injunction.

The proposed recovery of ₹2,60,000 and ₹2,55,000 was based on amounts allegedly paid under the same agreement and was pleaded as an alternative relief if the agreement could not be implemented.

Thus, the amendment was connected with the existing subject matter and did not introduce a wholly new or unrelated cause of action.

The order-sheet further showed that the suit was at an initial stage and that issues had not yet been framed, reducing any procedural prejudice to the defendant.

Since the trial Court had considered the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the amendment, and the surrounding circumstances, the High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting supervisory interference under Article 227.

It held that the trial Court validly allowed the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and that the amendment neither impermissibly changed the nature of the suit nor caused such prejudice as to justify interference.

The writ petition was dismissed.

The defendant No. 1 was granted liberty to make consequential amendments to his written statement, if desired, and the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial.