DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU V/S SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL), 2024

Referring to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr 2022 and other precedents, culled out certain principles :

1. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. (This is mandatory, word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.)
2. In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.
3. General Rule is to allow but disallowed if-
   (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side.

(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;

(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,

(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.

4 Some general principles to be kept in mind are –
(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.

(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

(IV) If Aspect Introduced Is Necessary To Be Decided To Determine Issues Then Delay Occurred In Preferring Amendment Application Wouldn’t Have Relevance.