Neeraj Sharma

Assistant Professor
School of law
Introduction
 Due to illiteracy and ignorance of law, a litigant often
omits to communicate all facts and circumstances of a
particular case to his legal advisor.

 Further a legal advisor may not be fully aware of the

significance of certain facts at the initial level and may
come to know of their importance as the case proceeds
Object of Order 6 Rule 17
 To enable the real question in issue , between the
parties to be raised on the pleadings for the purpose of
adjudication between the parties.

 To prevent the multiplicity of suits and shortens

litigation.
Reading of Rule 17 of Order 6
 The first part leaves it to the discretion of the court to
amend or not.

 The second part makes it imperative on the court to

make all such amendments as may be necessary.
Important things
 The court should record reasons for allowing or not
allowing the amendments.

 An order granting amendment without hearing the

opposite party is not legal and valid.

 An opportunity should be given to other party to file

an objection against a prayer for amendment
Haridas Alidas Thadani v. Godrej
Rustom Kermani AIR 1983
 It was held that courts should be extremely liberal in
granting prayer of amendment of pleadings unless
serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the
other side.
Considerations for grant of leave to
amend
 To enable the real question in issue between the
parties to be raised(‘basic test’)
 It does not cause any injury or injustice to the opposite
party
 Even if it causes some injury to the other party, the
same is compensated in terms of money by way of
infliction of costs.
Circumstances in which
amendment may be rejected
 An amendment should not change the basic structure
or subject-matter of the suit.
 An entirely new or inconsistent cause of action is not
allowed through an amendment of pleadings.
 Leave to amend will be refused when the amendment
application is not made in good faith

 The court should not adopt hyper-technical approach

while deciding the prayers for amendment
 Technicalities of law should not be permitted to
hamper the courts in the administration of justice
between the parties.
Real Controversy Test
 It is the basic test.
 It is the duty of the court to decide the real disputes
between the parties.
 If it is , the amendment will be allowed.
 If it is not, the amendment will be refused.
 Thus , if the amendment is not necessary or is merely
technical or useless or without any substance , it will
be refused.
Dalip Kaur v. Major Singh AIR 1996
 The plaintiff filed an application under O.VI , R. 17 of
CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint.

 The application was dismissed by the trial court.

 The ground was inordinate delay
Punjab and Haryana High Court
 HC held that the relief claimed is not barred by time
 The proposed amendment do not impact the vested
right of the respondent
 The delay in filing the petition for amendment can be
compensated by costs.
 High court observed that the amendment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and under all
circumstances.
 The circumstances may differ from case to case
 It would depend upon the facts of each individual
case, keeping in view the object that the courts are to
do substantial justice and not to punish a party on
technical grounds.
Settled principles
 Proposed amendments should not cause prejudice to
the other side.
 Amendment of a claim barred by time should not be
allowed.
 No party should suffer on grounds of technicalities.
 The proposed amendment should not alter or
substitute the cause of action
Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal v. National
Building Co.
 Facts of the case:
Shri Manohar lal is karta of a joint Hindu Family and is
carrying on its business under the name , “Ram Lal
Manohar Lal”

He brings the suit in the business name.

The defendant co. raised the objection that since the
firm is an unregistered one, it is incompetent to sue.

Thereupon the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to the

effect that he was suing in the name of the family as
the karta or manager
 The trial court allowed the amendment

 High court reversed the order of trial court.

 It said that the suit instituted by the Joint Hindu
family in the name of an assumed business title was a
suit by a person who did not exist and was therefore
the nullity.
 The plaintiff has failed to aver, that the mistake was on
bonafide grounds.
Supreme court
 The court observed that the plaintiff was carrying on
business as commission agent in the name of “Jai Jai
Ram Manohar Lal”
 The plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as
manager of the HUF to which the business belonged.
SC held
 The supreme court held that the plaintiff was
competent to sue in his own name as Karta of joint
Hindu family to which the business belonged.

 Since the name in which the action was instituted was

merely the misdescription of the original plaintiff, no
question of limitation arises .

 The court granted the permission to amend the plaint

and to rectify the name of the party
THANK YOU