Pre-trial amendments to include purchasing details of adjacent property are permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Petitioners (Plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition and declaration that a 2008 Partition Deed and Rectification Deed were invalid due to undue influence.

While the suit was pending for trial, the Plaintiffs moved an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 225 of 2018) under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint.

They sought to include details regarding an additional 4 ¼ cents of land allegedly purchased by the first plaintiff via a 1994 Sale Deed, asserting this land was part of an oral partition alongside Item No. 8 of the 'A' schedule property.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on August 16, 2022, citing delay, the fact that these documents were not mentioned in previous litigations, and that the case was already posted for trial.

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

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the amendment application on the grounds of delay and Stage of proceedings when the trial had not yet commenced.

2. Whether the proposed amendment was necessary for a complete adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the amendment of pleadings.

The core principle is that courts should allow amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy between parties, provided they do not cause cause irreparable prejudice to the opposing party or fundamentally change the nature of the suit.

The court also considered the principle of avoiding "multiplicity of proceedings" to ensure all related disputes regarding the same subject matter are settled in one litigation.

The High Court observed that while the suit was posted for trial, the trial had "not yet commenced," making the technical bar against post-trial amendments less stringent.

The Court noted that Item No. 8 (the house property) was admittedly excluded from the challenged 2008 deeds and was subject to a disputed oral partition.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' attempt to include the adjacent 4 ¼ cents—allegedly part of that same oral partition—was relevant to the adjudication.

The Court reasoned that the veracity of the Sale Deed and the specifics of the oral partition are matters for trial, not grounds to bar an amendment.

It concluded that the amendment would not prejudice the defendants as they retain the right to file an additional written statement.

The Court held that the amendment was necessary to adjudicate the matter "once and for all" and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court directed that the defendants be permitted to file additional written statements in response to the amended pleadings.

No costs were awarded.