Pleading amendment cannot be refused solely for anticipated delay when it facilitates effective adjudication.

The petitioners, represented by their hereditary trustee, instituted O.A. No. 8 of 1999 under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951, seeking a declaration that Sri Sri Radhakrushna and Sri Sri Hanuman Mahaprabhu, situated at Kabisuryanagar, Ganjam, were private institutions in which the public had no interest.

The original application was dismissed on 10 April 2001, and the first appeal was dismissed on 7 September 2002.

In MSA No. 33 of 2002, the High Court, by order dated 7 January 2025, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication; the reference to O.A. No. 2 of 1999 in that order was stated to concern the same proceeding, subsequently renumbered as O.A. No. 8 of 1999.

After remand, the petitioners sought amendment of the original application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate subsequent developments, including a decree in RSA No. 341 of 2004 declaring the properties to be private properties.

The Additional Assistant Endowment Commissioner rejected the amendment application on the grounds that it would delay the proceeding and was unnecessary for adjudication.

The petitioners challenged that order in the present writ petition.

Whether the petitioners’ application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC ought to be allowed to incorporate subsequent developments and documents relevant to determining whether the institution was private or public?

Whether the amendment could be refused solely on the grounds that it might delay the proceeding or was considered unnecessary by the Endowment Commissioner?

The Court considered Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951, under which the original application concerning the private or public character of the institution had been filed.

It applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which requires amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy to be permitted, subject to safeguards against injustice, prejudice, introduction of a time-barred claim, alteration of the nature of the proceeding, mala fides, or deprivation of a valid defence.

Relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that amendments should generally be allowed where they facilitate effective adjudication, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, enable a more precise determination of the dispute, and do not cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite party.

Delay alone is not a sufficient ground to reject an amendment application.

The Court found that the amendment was sought after remand in circumstances where the petitioners had been given an opportunity to substantiate their claim that the institution was private.

The decree in RSA No. 341 of 2004 declaring the properties private was potentially relevant to the determination of the institution’s character and therefore could not be treated as irrelevant at the amendment stage.

Since the Commissioner had not rejected the amendment on the ground that it changed the nature or character of the original proceeding, and since the stated reasons were only delay and perceived lack of necessity, those reasons were insufficient under the liberal principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The amendment would enable the adjudicating authority to consider the material evidence and determine the actual controversy without requiring a separate proceeding.

The petitioners’ application for amendment was allowed, and they were directed to file a consolidated original application within the time fixed by the Additional Assistant Endowment Commissioner.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.