Pre-trial amendments should be allowed liberally to resolve the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction regarding land at Survey No. 77, Village Gopalpura, Morena, alleging that the respondents (defendants) attempted to forcibly construct on the land without a formal partition.

The defendants contested the suit, claiming construction began prior to the litigation.

Following the framing of issues on January 6, 2023, but before the commencement of evidence, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint.

They sought to include allegations of encroachment and construction that occurred during the pendency of the suit.

The trial court dismissed the application on April 29, 2023, citing delay and a lack of explanation regarding when the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the construction.

The petitioners challenged this dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing an application for amendment of pleadings at a pre-trial stage on the grounds of delay and lack of due diligence.

2. Whether the strict proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC regarding due diligence applies when the trial (recording of evidence) has not yet commenced.

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the amendment of pleadings.

Amendments necessary for determining the real controversy should be allowed if they cause no uncompensable prejudice as established in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2022 SC 4256).

A liberal approach toward amendments at the pre-trial stage to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings as emphasized in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi [(2006) 4 SCC 385].

Since the recording of evidence had not yet begun, the strict "due diligence" requirement found in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 does not operate with the same rigour as it would post-trial.

The allegations of encroachment and construction during the pendency of the suit were vital for the final adjudication of the dispute.

The trial court's focus on technicalities—specifically the lack of a "date of knowledge" for the construction—improperly overrode the substantive requirement of resolving the actual controversy.

By denying the amendment, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion to ensure a complete and effective adjudication of the matter.

The High Court set aside the trial court's order dated April 29, 2023, and allowed the petitioners' application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

The petitioners were directed to incorporate the amendments within the stipulated time, and the respondents were granted liberty to file additional written statements in response to the amended portions.

The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.