Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Change of cause of action — Nature of suit — Amendment seeking introduction of new reliefs such as declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and plea of adverse possession, when the original suit was filed only for cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction, amounts to setting up a new and distinct cause of action and changing the basic structure and nature of the suit and cannot be permitted.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Post-trial amendment — Due diligence —
Where amendment of plaint is sought after commencement of trial and after completion of plaintiff’s evidence, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars such amendment unless the party establishes that, in spite of due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Change of cause of action — Nature of suit —
Amendment seeking introduction of new reliefs such as declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and plea of adverse possession, when the original suit was filed only for cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction, amounts to setting up a new and distinct cause of action and changing the basic structure and nature of the suit and cannot be permitted.

Pleadings — Amendment — Withdrawal of admissions — Limitation —
Amendment which seeks to overcome admissions made in written statements, neutralise defences already accrued to the defendants, or revive claims barred by limitation, is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 65 — Adverse possession —
When title and possession are denied by the defendant more than twelve years prior, a belated attempt to introduce a plea of adverse possession by amendment at the fag end of trial is barred and cannot be permitted through amendment of pleadings.

Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Scope —
Where the Trial Court has exercised discretion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in accordance with settled principles, and has rightly refused amendment which changes the nature of the suit and introduces a fresh cause of action, interference under Article 227 is unwarranted.

---

CASE FACTS

• The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.227 of 2014, 264 of 2014 and 201 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.

• The suits were originally filed seeking cancellation of registered sale deeds and permanent injunction in respect of immovable property.

• Written statements were filed as early as 11.11.2010, wherein defendant No.8 categorically denied the plaintiffs’ possession and asserted his own possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

• Plaintiffs’ evidence was completed by 2020, and the matters were at the stage of defendants’ evidence.

• In 2022, after lapse of more than 12 years, the plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.373/2022, 372/2022 and 03/2022 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaints to introduce:

  • declaration of title,

  • recovery of possession,

  • mandatory injunction, and

  • plea of adverse possession, relying on a decree in O.S.No.57 of 2003.

• The Trial Court dismissed the said applications by orders dated 10.03.2023.

• Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS

• The High Court examined the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the proviso governing post-trial amendments.

• The Court noted that:

  • The defendants had denied plaintiffs’ possession as early as 2010.

  • Plaintiffs remained silent for more than 12 years without seeking amendment.

  • Plaintiffs failed to establish that, in spite of due diligence, they could not have sought amendment earlier.

• The proposed amendments sought to:

  • introduce fresh reliefs and a new cause of action,

  • transform the suits from cancellation of sale deeds into suits for declaration, possession and adverse possession, and

  • unsettle the issues already framed and evidence already recorded.

• The Court held that:

  • New facts allegedly arising in 2021 could not be merged with long-pending litigation based on a different cause of action.

  • If dispossession had occurred, plaintiffs were required to initiate separate proceedings, not amend old suits.

• Reliance was placed on principles laid down in
  Basavaraj v. Indira,
  Vempati Rama Kotamma v. Oruganti Jayaprakash Reddy, and
  Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd..

• The Court also examined Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, holding that the belated plea of adverse possession was barred and impermissible by way of amendment.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Post-trial amendment of plaint is barred under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC unless due diligence is pleaded and proved.

2. Amendment introducing declaration of title, recovery of possession and adverse possession changes the nature and structure of the suit and is impermissible.

3. A new cause of action arising long after institution of the suit cannot be merged with old pending litigation through amendment.

4. Belated amendments intended to overcome admissions, accrued defences and limitation are liable to be rejected.

5. Where the Trial Court’s refusal of amendment is in conformity with settled law, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

---

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Judge: V. Sujatha
Reserved on: 19.12.2025
Pronounced on: 08.01.2026
Uploaded on: 08.01.2026