Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, including after commencement of trial, subject to due diligence. No statutory limitation period exists for filing amendment applications. Amendments to written statements are to be considered liberally, even permitting additional grounds of defence. Where amendment merely elaborates an existing defence and relates to the real controversy, it ought to be allowed. A plea that suit for injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title is not a new defence when title dispute already exists in pleadings. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to upset a discretionary order passed on correct legal principles.

advocatemmmohan

---

Constitution of India — Article 227

Supervisory jurisdiction — Scope.

Interference under Article 227 is permissible only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity.
Discretionary orders passed in accordance with settled principles of law do not warrant interference.
(Paras 7, 14)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17

Amendment of pleadings — Scope — Liberal approach.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.
(Paras 8–9)

---

Amendment after commencement of trial

Due diligence — Meaning and application.

Even after commencement of trial, amendment is permissible provided the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not raise the matter earlier.
There is no absolute bar against amendment after commencement of trial.
(Para 10)

---

Delay in seeking amendment

No limitation prescribed.

Neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor the Limitation Act prescribes any limitation period for filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Filing an amendment application after three years and seven months cannot by itself be treated as belated.
(Para 9)

---

Written statement — Amendment — Liberal consideration

Amendment of a written statement stands on a more liberal footing than amendment of plaint.
The defendant is entitled even to take additional or alternative grounds of defence.
(Para 13)

---

Amendment — Elaboration of existing pleadings

Where the proposed amendment merely elaborates or clarifies the defence already taken in the written statement, such amendment does not change the nature of defence and is liable to be allowed.
(Paras 4, 12)

---

Property dispute — Identity of property

Where the dispute primarily concerns:

• identity of the suit property,
• boundaries, and
• existence or non-existence of access road,

amendment explaining layout plans, master plans and plot boundaries directly relates to the real controversy and is permissible.
(Paras 10–12)

---

Advocate Commissioner — Dismissal — Effect

Dismissal of an earlier application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner does not bar a party from seeking amendment of pleadings to clarify facts relating to identity of property.
(Para 12)

---

Prejudice — Test

Amendment cannot be rejected unless it causes serious prejudice to the opposite party or deprives that party of a valuable accrued right.
Where plaintiff already had to meet the plea of title dispute, elaboration of the same defence causes no prejudice.
(Paras 12–13)

---

Injunction suit — Plea regarding declaration of title

Where the original written statement itself disputes plaintiff’s title, an additional plea that the suit is not maintainable without declaration of title does not introduce a new defence.
Such plea is only a legal consequence of the existing defence.
(Para 13)

---

Discretion of trial court

Trial court has wide discretionary power in allowing amendments of pleadings.
So long as the discretion is exercised judicially and on sound reasoning, it does not call for interference under Article 227.
(Paras 12–14)

---

Supreme Court precedent — Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh

Trial courts are empowered to permit even new grounds of defence in amendments to written statements.
(Para 13)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage, including after commencement of trial, subject to due diligence.

2. No statutory limitation period exists for filing amendment applications.

3. Amendments to written statements are to be considered liberally, even permitting additional grounds of defence.

4. Where amendment merely elaborates an existing defence and relates to the real controversy, it ought to be allowed.

5. A plea that suit for injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title is not a new defence when title dispute already exists in pleadings.

6. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to upset a discretionary order passed on correct legal principles.