Recently, the Delhi High court in a recent judgement overturned the trial court order pertaining to the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint under order 6 rule 17. The High Court rejected the reasoning made by the trial court and observed that the impugned order was not in consonance with the principle of law. The case examines the substantial aspect of Law where application for amendment of a petition cannot merely be rejected on the ground of being filed subsequent to the matter listed for point of limitation. Such an application cannot be rejected on looking at the merits of the case. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally. Rejection of such application will cause undue delay and also undermine the rule of law.
Brief Facts:
The fact of the case originates from the order of trial court, dismissing the application of the petitioner for amendment. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the plaint as the petitioner found an old diary which shows record of loans which was advanced to the respondent. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of loan advanced to the respondent. However, on the date of argument, petitioner filed another application for an amendment of suit. The learned trial court dismissed the application stating that the plaintiff deliberately tried to amend the petition to circumvent from seeking clarification on the point of limitation. In consequence of this, a petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order of the trial court and to allow the application for amendment of suit.
Contentions of the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the trial court on considering the question of amendment looked at the merits of the proposed amendment and that too when the case was at initial stage. This contention arose out of a trial court order which holded the amendment application. The learned counsel further argued that the reasoning propounded by the trial court is not a valid ground for dismissal. There can be no observation made out without taking evidence on record. It was proposed on behalf of petitioner that the proposed amendment should be considered liberally without any prejudice in case.
Observations of the Court:
The Court ruled on the question of the said application to be allowed for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17. The Court observed that Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Firstly it allows parties to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and secondly the amendments made shall be in consonance of the real controversies between the parties. The Court also ruled that power to allow amendment of the pleading to a party is on the court and such amendment shall be allowed provided there is a finding on delay of disposal of the suit which can be avoided.
Furthermore, the Court delved into the facts of the case where the date of loan amount experienced certain clerical omission. After knowing this, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to amend the plaint to the relevant extract by incorporating the correct date. The Court stated that the decision of the trial court in not allowing the application cannot be considered correct. Petitioner was having his right to file such an application. The Court on directing the trial court, held that the amendment application cannot merely be rejected on the ground of having a prior consideration on the question of limitation.
The Court referred to the judgement of Sukriti Dugal Vs. Jahnavi Dugal & Ors., held, “filing of an application action for amendment subsequent to the matter being listed for seeking clarification on the point of limitation, is immaterial, and cannot be a ground to reject the application merely because such amendment would support the petitioner’s case on the point of limitation, moreover, when the trial court itself was of the view that the suit was within limitation even from the original complaint.”
Moreover, the Court is of the opinion that an application seeking amendment to the plaint cannot solely be rejected on the ground that it listed simultaneously to the matter for seeking clarification on point of limitation.
The Court also ruled that the trial court’s reasoning of documentary diary not considered as bound diary is without any basis. Trial court cannot go into the merit of the case. The court further observed that application under order 6 rule 17 can only be rejected when the nature of the suit is changed which is not in the instant case. It was considered by the High Court that the present amendment application was filed by the petitioner even prior to the issue of summons which makes amendment legally allowable.
On all the above reasoning the court allowed the amendment application and rejected the trial court order.
The decision of the Court:
The Court ruled that amendment application should be allowed and set aside the trial court order.
Case Title : Nimisha Bhagat V. Rashi Misra
Case No: CM(M) 1065/2022 & CM APPL. 43909/2022 STAY
Coram : Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Counsel for the Petitioner : Adv. Manish Gandhi, Rishika Nagpal, Suyash Pandey
Counsel for the Respondent : Not appeared
Picture Source :
