Innumerable times, parties to a civil suit, inadvertently, due to urgency, or otherwise, end up making clerical, typographical or arithmetical errors in their pleadings, including putting a wrong valuation to their Suit, etc. Often, the consequences of such an inadvertence turns out to be detrimental to the erring party. Apropos, for the benefit of such a party, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) provides for, in its First Schedule, a provision i.e., Order VI Rule 17, by means of which the concerned party can avail an opportunity to alter its pleadings by filing an application under the said provision, before the concerned court, in a manner that they may deem most advantageous. That being said, an amendment to one’s pleadings is not a matter of right and one needs to seek leave of the Court, that too by way of a proper application. In this article, we attempt to understand the concept of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908.

Before examining how the Apex Court has interpreted the said provision, let us advert to an overview of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908. It provides for amendment of pleadings, which means that a party can attempt to rectify errors that may have been made while filing their pleading or those which may be unearthed during the course of proceedings. The raison d'etre of the said provision is to meet the ends of justice and to determine the real questions of conflict between the parties concerned. All in all, it is meant to advance the cause of justice rather than impede it. Courts across India have, time and again, reiterated and emphasized the importance of this provision to ensure that parties involved receive fair and comprehensive resolution, as the courts strive to achieve the ultimate goal of doing full and complete justice to all involved.

With the passage of time, came many interpretations of the said provision by several courts across India. Relevantly, an occasion arose before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128), to adjudge the correctness of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which allowed the Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the Plaintiff therein. The Supreme Court whilst dismissing the appeal, conclusively, summarized and enumerated a set of guiding principles for deciding an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908, which are interpreted and produced as follows:

All amendments must be allowed unless it causes injustice to the other parties concerned; however, the said amendment must not:

1. withdraw any clear admission made by the said party;
2. raise a time barred claim, resulting in the deprivation of a valuable accrued right of the opposite party/ies;
3. alter the nature of the suit;
4. introduce a prayer which is mala fide in nature;
5. render the other party/ies to lose a valid defence; and
6. result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party(ies).

The Hon’ble Apex Court further sets out principles that courts should not use a hypertechnical approach and should be liberal, especially when the other side can be compensated with costs. It is further elucidated thereon that amendments should be allowed when: it would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute; it would introduce a new approach; it would rectify the absence of material particulars, and; it would render the court in giving an appropriate and satisfactory decision.

The said decision evaluated numerous judgments of the High Courts in India and succinctly summed up the principles, as stated above, which are ought to be followed by all courts, and, especially, required to be kept in mind by those who are seeking to rectify errors in their pleadings. Needless to say, every case and every application for amendment has to be tested in the applicable facts and circumstances of the case but one can reap benefit of the said principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

By - Vaibhav Mehra