Pre-trial amendment seeking restoration of possession in injunction suit is permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit (RCSA No. 8/2025) for a permanent injunction against the petitioners regarding land in Survey No. 1050/2

The petitioners filed a written statement asserting that their construction was on Survey Nos. 1050/3/1 and 1050/3/2, disclaiming interest in the plaintiff's land

Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint to include reliefs for declaration and restoration of possession

Although issues had been framed, the trial (recording of evidence) had not yet commenced

The Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaura, allowed the amendment on 13.07.2026, which the petitioners challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by allowing an amendment to the plaint after the framing of issues but before the recording of evidence

2. Whether the proposed amendment regarding the relief of possession and declaration changed the nature of the suit or prejudiced the rights of the defendants

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that all amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy shall be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice

LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 1, which established that courts should be liberal in allowing amendments before the commencement of trial to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, even if the amendment introduces a new relief, provided it is predicated on existing facts and does not set up a completely "foreign" case

The High Court observed that while issues were framed, the trial had not "commenced" in the technical sense as the recording of evidence had not started

Applying the Sanjeev Builders guidelines, the court reasoned that the amendment was necessary to effectively adjudicate the dispute regarding the alleged encroachment on Survey No. 1050/2 and to prevent future litigation

The court found that the petitioners’ rights were not prejudiced because they retained the opportunity to file an amended written statement to counter the new claims

The court concluded that the trial court’s decision was aimed at pinpointing the actual controversy rather than allowing a "hypertechnical approach" to block the amendment

The court affirmed that the amendment was permissible as it avoided multiplicity of litigation and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit in a way that irreperably prejudiced the defendants

All pending applications were closed