The Calcutta High Court set aside a trial court order that permitted amendment of plaint after trial had commenced, holding that such amendment defeats the accrued rights of the opposite party and contravenes the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The judgment clarifies that belated amendments are impermissible when they alter the original cause of action or jeopardize rights already accrued through pleadings and evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a partition suit concerning agricultural land in Mouja-Andulberia, where the plaintiffs (Kanai Malakar & Ors.) sought division of suit properties, while the defendants (Keshab Malakar & Anr.) claimed exclusive ownership based on a gift deed executed in 1976.
Key Facts
- The plaintiffs filed Partition Suit No. 13 of 2018 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad on 30 July 2018.
- The defendants filed their written statement on 12 March 2019, disclosing that Nanda Dulal Malakar transferred his 0.01-acre share in plot No. 1749 to his brother Panchanan Malakar by a registered deed of gift dated 20 April 1976 and delivered possession.
- The defendants, as descendants of Panchanan Malakar, resisted the plaintiffs’ prayer for partition, asserting ownership of the entire plot No. 1749 and an 8-anna share in plot No. 1750 (0.02 acre).
- On 1 September 2023, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint to challenge the validity and legality of the said gift deed.
- The trial court, vide order dated 18 March 2025, allowed the amendment petition and directed the plaintiffs to file the amended plaint on the following date.
- Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present revision (C.O. 3542 of 2025) before the High Court.
Procedural History
- 30.07.2018: Partition Suit No. 13 of 2018 instituted.
- 12.03.2019: Written statement of defendants filed.
- 01.09.2023: Plaintiffs’ amendment petition filed.
- 18.03.2025: Trial court order allowing amendment (impugned order).
- 21.09.2026: Matter heard before the High Court.
- 25.09.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The defendants sought to set aside the trial court’s order dated 18 March 2025 and to have the trial court proceed with the suit on the existing pleadings and evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after the trial had commenced, in violation of the proviso that prohibits such amendment unless the court finds that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial commenced, and whether the proposed amendment would alter the original cause of action or defeat the accrued rights of the opposite party.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners/Defendants
The petitioners contended that the trial had already commenced substantially by the time the amendment petition was filed in September 2023, after the plaintiffs had participated in proceedings for over four years. They argued that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the gift deed from March 2019 (when the written statement was served) yet delayed seeking amendment until 2023, showing lack of due diligence. The amendment sought to challenge the very foundation of the defendants’ title, thereby altering the original cause of action and jeopardizing the defendants’ accrued rights arising from pleadings and evidence. They relied on Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh (1996) 7 SCC 486 and Smt. Dipti Paik v. Sri Jogesh Chandra Roy (2016) Vol. 1 CHN 461 to assert that belated amendments are not permissible when they defeat rights accrued through lapse of time.
For the Respondent/Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs argued that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties, as the gift deed’s validity was central to the title dispute. They submitted that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely addressed a defensive plea raised by the defendants in their written statement. Citing Sanjeev Builders Private Limited v. Sanjeev Builders (2022) 16 SCC 1, they contended that amendments can be allowed at any stage if they are necessary for determining the real controversy and are not time-barred. They further asserted that the gift deed was void ab initio, so limitation principles did not apply.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings. It noted that while the power to amend is wide and may be exercised in the interest of justice, it is governed by judicial considerations, and the court must exercise care and circumspection. The Court emphasized that no amendment should be allowed which amounts to or results in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time.
"The law appears to be well-settled that amendment of pleading is required to facilitate determination of the real controversy in issue in a suit, provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken."
Applying these principles, the Court found that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the gift deed from March 2019, yet waited until September 2023 to seek amendment, by which time the suit had proceeded substantially and evidence had been recorded. Allowing the amendment at that stage would introduce a new challenge to the defendants’ title, thereby altering the original cause of action and defeating the defendants’ accrued rights. The Court held that the trial court’s order suffered from gross illegality and material irregularity for non-application of mind to the factual background and for violating the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The Verdict
The defendants succeeded. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 18 March 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Partition Suit No. 13 of 2018. It directed the trial court to proceed with the trial of the suit as expeditiously as possible and to pass judgment on the pleadings and evidence already collected. No monetary relief or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Amendment After Trial Commencement Is Restricted
Practitioners must ensure that any amendment sought after trial has commenced does not alter the original cause of action or defeat accrued rights. The burden lies on the party seeking amendment to show due diligence and that the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy without prejudicing the opposite party.
Knowledge Triggers the Limitation Analogue
Once a party gains knowledge of a fact that forms the basis of a proposed amendment (e.g., through receipt of the opposite party’s written statement), delay in seeking amendment may be construed as lack of due diligence, rendering the amendment impermissible if it jeopardizes accrued rights.
Preservation of Accrued Rights Through Pleadings and Evidence
Courts will protect rights that have accrued through pleadings and evidence collected substantially before an amendment is sought. Amendments that seek to unsettle such settled positions after lapse of time are likely to be set aside as violating the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
