Contents

1. Introduction.01
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Essentials of pleading.02
Amendment of Pleadings and its object.03
Leave to amend when granted03
Leave to amend when refused04
Effect of amendment...05
Case Study..07
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami &

Ors..................07
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India ...10
8. Conclusion..16
9. References...17

Introduction:
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings.
Pleadings are the case of the Plaintiff or the Defendant in Plaint and Written Statement
0

respectively. An amendment can be by way of altering something, modifying something, deleting

something.
A plaint or written statement may be drafted by the parties or counsels in a hurried manner.
In doing like this there may be errors. Even if it is prepared with taking time, by oversight some
part may be missed. Also change in some circumstances may require the party to incorporate
some vital details in his pleadings. In all these circumstances, the provision for amendment
comes to the help of parties when his pleadings are already filed in the Court. It can be said that a
party will not lose his chance to plead his good case by way of amendment only because he has
already filed his pleadings.
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings1. It shall be for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the
parties. It is the discretion of the Court.
No amendment after commencement of trial. This is the ordinary rule. Anyhow the party
can convince the court that despite due diligence, he could not raise the matter before the trial. In
Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggi Reddy Venkatanarayana Reddy2, the Supreme Court of
India held that if the plaintiff is given permission to lead additional evidence while the suit is still
pending, amendment of written statement should also be permitted. Exceptions noted are:
1. it should not be allowed if it is established that the amendment would be unjust and
would result in prejudice against the opposite side as could not be compensated by costs
or would deprive him of right accrued due to lapse of time.
2. the prayer made has become time barred. It is also said that an amendment should not
change the nature of the suit.
If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the
time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen
1 Order6 Rule17
2 (2001) 8 SCC 115
1

days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such
limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended
by the Court3.
Essentials of pleading:
In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written
statement filed with a court by parties in a civil action, other than a motion. By stating what
claims and defenses are at issue, pleadings establish the issues to be decided by the court.
O VI, R 1 states that "Pleading", shall mean plaint or written statement. Thus pleadings constitute
of both what is alleged by the plaintiff and the response by the Defendant. A plaint is the first
document that initiates the pleading and thus, a lawsuit. A plaint sets forth the relevant
allegations of fact that give rise to one or more legal causes of action along with a prayer for
relief.
It can be seen that Rule 14 defines pleading; Rule 25 lays down the fundamental principles
of pleading. Rules 3 to 13 require the essential particulars to be supplied by parties. O VI, R6
2states the fundamental rules of pleading. They include that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

Pleadings must state fact, not law,

Pleadings should state fact and only fact,
Pleadings should state material fact and not evidence, and
Pleadings should state facts in a concise form.

3 Order 6 Rule 18
4 1.Pleading "Pleading", shall mean plaint or written statement.
5 2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence (1) Every pleading shall
contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on
which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not
the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when
necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation
being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.(3) Dates, sums
and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words.
2

Rule 17 of Order VI deals with the provision of amendment of the plaint. It states:
17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all
such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
question in controversy between the parties.
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,
unless the Court conies to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
Amendment of Pleadings and its object:
As stated earlier, essential details have to be mentioned in the plaint and unnecessary details
have to be struck out.
In the case of Cropper v. Smith7, Bowen, L.J. remarks:
I think it is well-established principle that the object of the courts is to decide the rights of
the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by
deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights
The paramount object behind Amendment is that the courts should try the merits of the
cases that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be

6 Pleading to state material facts and not evidence (1) Every pleading shall contain,
and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense as the case may be, but not the evidence by which
they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs,
numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a
separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in
figures as well as in words. It is an essential requirement of pleading that the material facts
and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be
based on grounds outside the pleadings. But many a time the party may find it necessary to
emend his pleadings before or during the trial of the case.

7 (1884) 29 Ch D 700
3

necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does
not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.8
Ultimately, the courts exist for doing justice between the parties and not for punishing
them, and they are empowered to grant amendments of pleadings in the larger interest of doing
full and complete justice to parties. 9 Provisions for the amendment of pleading are contained to
promote end of justice and not for defeating them.10
Leave to amend when granted:
The Rule confers a very wide discretion on courts in the matter of amendment of pleadings. As a
general rule, leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real question in issue between
parties to be raised in pleadings, where the amendment will occasion no injury to the opposite
party and can be sufficiently compensated for by costs or other terms to be imposed by the
order.11
In Kisandas v. Vithoba12, Batchelor J. observed as follows:
All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working in
justice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties
Therefore the main points to be considered before a party is allowed to amend his pleading
are: firstly, whether the amendment is necessary for determination of the real question in
controversy; and secondly, can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side.
8 Patil v. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363
9 Ram Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869.
10 Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91: AIR 1978 SC 484
11 Tildersley v. Harper, (1878) 10 Ch D 393
12 [1909] I.L.R. 33 Bom. 644
4

Thus, it has been held that where amendment is sought to avoid multiplicity of suits 13, or where
the parties in the plaint are wrongly described 14, or where some properties are omitted from the
plaint by inadvertence15, the amendment should be allowed.
Leave to amend when refused:
It is true that courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings. But
the wider the discretion, the greater is the possibility of its abuse. Ultimately it is a legal power
and no legal power can be exercised improperly, unreasonably or arbitrarily. In Ganga Bai v.
Vijay Kumar16, the Supreme Court observed:
The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be
appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the
exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and
wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court.
Generally, in the following cases, leave to amend will be refused by the court:
1. Leave to amend will be refused when amendment is not necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The real controversy
test is the basic test. In Edevian v. Cohen17, the application for amendment was rejected
since it was not necessary to decide the real question in controversy.

13 Leach & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357
14 Ram Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869.
15 Someshwari v. Mahshwari, AIR 1936 PC 332
16 1974 AIR 1126
17 (1889) 43 Ch. D 187.
5

2. Leave to amend will be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent
case or changes the fundamental character of the suit or defence.18
3. Leave to amend will be refused where the effect of the proposed amendment is to take
away from the other side a legal right accrued in his favour.19 Every amendment should
be allowed if it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party.
4. Leave to amend will be refused where the application for amendment is not made in good
faith.20 The leave to amend is to be refused if the applicant has acted mala fide.21
Effect of Amendment
Where an amendment is allowed, such amendment relates back to the date of the suit as
originally filed. In Brij Kishore v. Smt. Mushtari Khatoon 22 it was held that the Court must take
the pleadings as they stand after amendment and leave out of consideration the unamended one.
If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the
time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen
18 In Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., (1886) 16 QB 178, the plaintiff filed a suit for
damages against the tramways Company for negligence of the company in allowing the tramways to be in
a defective condition. The company denied the allegation of negligence. It was not even contended that
the company was not the proper party to be sued. More than six months after the written statement was
filed, the company applied for leave to amend the defence by adding the plea that under the contract
entered into between the company and the local authority the liability to maintain tramways in proper
condition was of the latter and, therefore, the company was not liable. On the date of the amendment
application, the plaintiff's remedy against the local authority was time barred. Had the agreement been
pleaded earlier, the plaintiff could have filed a suit even against the local authority. Under the
circumstances, the amendment was refused.
19Patil v. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363: 1957 SCR 559; Leach & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC357

20 Patil v. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363

21 In Patasibai v. Ratanlal, 1990 SCC (2) 42, it was observed that there was no ground to allow the
application for amendment of the plaint which apart from being highly belated, was clearly an
afterthought for the obvious purpose of averting the inevitable consequence of rejection of the plaint on
the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action or raise any triable issue.
22 Brij Kishore v. Smt. Mushtari Khatoon, AIR 1976 All 399
6

days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such
limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended
by the Court. 23
Case study:
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors24.
The Bench comprising Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Raveendran have explained
the law relating to amendment of pleadings. The Bench has highlighted the fundamental
difference in the approach of Courts while dealing with a prayer for amendment of the Written
Statement vis-a-vis amendment of the Plaint. The bench has observed as under;
Before dealing with the question whether the amendment sought for was rightly rejected by
the High Court or not, we may first consider the principles under which amendments of
pleadings can be allowed or rejected. The principle allowing or rejecting an amendment of the
pleadings has emanated from Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which runs as
under:
"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be
made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties.
Provided that no application for shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the
Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the
matter before the commencement of trial"
From a bare perusal of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the
court is conferred with power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and
amendments of the pleadings if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for
determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
23 Order 6, Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code, 1908
24 ( 2007) 5 SCC 602
7

of the Code, however, provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced unless the court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, proviso to Order 6
Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable in the present case, as the trial of the suit has not yet
commenced.
It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that
the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious
injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for
amendment was not a bonafide one. In this connection, the observation of the Privy Council in
the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung 25 may be taken note of. The Privy Council
observed:
"All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration
of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to
that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally
exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to
be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit."
It is equally well settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for
amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that
amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action
or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles
relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence
or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would
not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may
be objectionable.
Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written
statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the
question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case 26. Even the decision
25 AIR 1922 P.C. 249
26 see B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai (2000(1) SCC 712) and Baldev
Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh (2006 (6) SCC 498)
8

relied on by the plaintiff in Modi Spinning clearly recognises that inconsistent pleas can be
taken in the pleadings. In this context, we may also refer to the decision of this Court in Basavan
Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary (Dead)27. In that case, the defendant had
initially taken up the stand that he was a joint tenant along with others. Subsequently, he
submitted that he was a licensee for monetary consideration who was deemed to be a tenant as
per the provisions of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control
Act, 1947. This Court held that the defendant could have validly taken such an inconsistent
defence. While allowing the amendment of the written statement, this Court observed in
Basavan Jaggu Dhobi's case as follows:"As regards the first contention, we are afraid that the courts below have gone wrong in
holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
by taking a contrary stand than was stated originally in the written statement. This is opposed to
the settled law open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, the
cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being
amended so as to introduce a new cause of action."
As we have already noted herein earlier that in allowing the amendment of the written
statement a liberal approach is a general view when admittedly in the event of allowing the
amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be
permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. In the case of
L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co.28, this Court observed "that the Courts are
more generous in allowing amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is
less likely to operate in that event". In that case this Court also held "that the defendant has
right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the
proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to serious injustice."
Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of amendment of a written
statement the Courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of
prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of
defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement
27 1995 Supp (3) SCC 179
28 AIR 1957 SC 357
9

can also be allowed, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in
rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India29

The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India has re-itereated the law
relating to amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court, while
considering Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, in several judgments has laid down the principles
applicable in the case of amendment of plaint which are as follows:
8. In order to consider the claim of the plaintiff and the opposition of the defendants, it is
desirable to refer the relevant provisions. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(in short `the Code') enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which reads as under;
"17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all
such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall
be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite
of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
The above provision deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999,
this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an
added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent,
curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after
commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could

29 2011 STPL(Web) 708 SC

10

not have been sought earlier. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow
either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts
while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach
should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with
costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
9. Inasmuch as the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh has approached this Court invoking
the original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, the Rules framed by this
Court, i.e., The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short `the Rules) have to be applied to the case on
hand. Order XXVI speaks about "Pleadings Generally".
Among various rules, we are concerned about Rule 8 which reads as under:
"The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to amend his pleading in
such manner and on such terms as may be just, but only such amendments shall be made as may
be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the
parties."
The above provision, which is similar to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code prescribes that at any
stage of the proceedings, the Court may allow either party to amend his pleadings. However, it
must be established that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the
real question in controversy between the parties.
10. This Court, while considering Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, in several judgments has
laid down the principles to be applicable in the case of amendment of plaint which are as
follows:
1. Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh,30 at para 5:
"5. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on
two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a
belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that
30 (2009) 10 SCC 626
11

needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy
between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on
the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such
terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such an application for
amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if
it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on
payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application
for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment."
2. North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRS, 31 at
para16:
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing
amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned,
these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at
any stage of the proceedings.
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil 32 which still holds the field, it
was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of
not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be
refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the
pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury
which could not be compensated in costs."
3. Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and Others,33 at para 13:
31 (2008) 8 SCC 511
32 AIR 1957 SC 363
12

"13. Mr Bharuka, on the other hand, invited our attention to another decision of this
Court in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh 34. In para 17 of the decision, it was held and
observed as follows35:
"17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit
has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in
fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have
yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that
the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial
court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the
Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final
hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of
arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find
any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion on
the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the
proceedings."
4. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others, 36 at paras 15 & 16: "15.
The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case that come before
them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for
33 (2008) 3 SCC 717,
34 SLP(C) Nos. 12719-12720/2005
35 SCC pp. 504-05
36 (2006) 4 SCC 385
13

determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not
cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first part is discretionary (may)
and leaves it to the court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative
(shall) and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the
purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties."
5. Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others,37 at para 63:
"63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles
emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of
the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the
nature and character of the case; and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended
claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the
important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed
under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."
The above principles make it clear that Courts have ample power to allow the application
for amendment of the plaint. However, it must be satisfied that the same is required in the
interest of justice and for the purpose of determination of real question in controversy between
the parties.

37 (2009) 10 SCC 84,

14

Conclusion:
Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide true rights of the parties in
trial. Amendment in the pleadings is a matter of procedure. Grant or refusal thereof is in the
discretion of the court. But like any other discretion, such discretion has to be exercised
consistent with settled legal principles. In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram 38 (1978) 2 SCR 614,
this Court stated :
Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice.
Provisions relating to pleading in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case
of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between
parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action
must take.
It can be concluded that the amendment of pleading is necessary to avoid multiplicity of
civil suits. But, the court cannot grant the leave of amendment at its whims and fancies. There
has to certain criterion for granting or refusing the leave, which has been laid down in case laws.

38 Order 6, Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code, 1908

15

It is true that parties interested in delaying the trial of the case make misuse of this provision by
moving frivolous amendments and after rejection of the application going in revision before the
higher Court, delaying the proceedings before the lower courts. 39

References
Books:
1. Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure, 14th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths
2. B. Senguttervan&S.Ramachandran, Basus The Code of Civil Procedure Law, (Rev.),
10th ed., 2007, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi.
3. Takwani C.K., Civil Procedure Code, Edition 5. Reprint 2007, Eastern Book
Publication, Lucknow.
4. Dr. Myneni S.R., The Law of Evidence. Edition 1. Asia law House, Hyderabad.
5. Halsbury Laws of India, Vol. : Code of Civil Procedure
6. Anil Nandwani, Law of Civil Procedure in India, 1 st ed.2006, Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad.
7. M.P Jain, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1st ed. 2004, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.
8. Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 10th ed.2002, Vol.2, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.

39 Pg 1064, Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 10th ed.2002, Vol.2, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.
16

Websites:
1.

www.jurisonline.in

2.

www.legalserviceindia.com

3.

www.ebc.co.in

17