Pre-trial amendment of pleadings is permissible where the nature of suit remains unchanged and no prejudice is caused.

The petitioners (defendants) challenged an order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the Sub Judge, Danapur, in Title Suit No. 05 of 2017.

The suit was originally filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) seeking a declaration against certain sale deeds executed by the plaintiff’s son.

On 22.05.2018, the plaintiff filed an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to include facts regarding an additional sale deed dated 01.02.2016 and to implead a new party, Rajnish Ranjan.

The petitioners contested this, arguing the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the sale deed since 2017 via a criminal complaint case and that the amendment would materially alter the suit's nature.

The trial court allowed the amendment, finding the plaintiff lacked prior knowledge and that the changes were formal in nature.

1. Whether the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was legally sustainable given the allegation of prior knowledge and its impact on the nature of the suit.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which grants courts the discretion to allow parties to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just, provided that all such amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy.

The "proviso" to Order VI Rule 17 CPC limits amendments after the commencement of trial unless the party shows "due diligence"; however, amendments are generally viewed liberally if the trial has not yet commenced.

The High Court determined that the trial in Title Suit No. 05 of 2017 had not yet commenced.

In line with established civil jurisprudence, the court held that pre-trial amendments should be viewed leniently to ensure all relevant issues are adjudicated.

Regarding the petitioners' claim that the plaintiff suppressed prior knowledge of the 2016 sale deed, the court noted that the trial court had already found the plaintiff lacked such knowledge.

The court reasoned that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit—which remained a challenge to sale deeds—but was merely formal.

The court emphasized the lack of prejudice to the petitioners, noting they were granted the right to file an additional written statement to rebut the new facts.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the amendment but explicitly reserved the petitioners' liberty to file an additional written statement or carry out consequential amendments to their own pleadings to respond to the newly introduced facts.