Order 6 Rule 17 empowers the court to allow amendments in pleadings (plaint or written statement) at any stage of the suit, if the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.

---

Two Conditions for Allowing Amendment

1. The amendment must be necessary for deciding the real dispute.

If the original pleadings miss important facts or require correction → court may allow.

2. The amendment should not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposite party.

If prejudice can be compensated with costs → amendment is allowed.

---

Proviso (After 2002 Amendment): Stricter Condition

After commencement of trial, the court shall NOT allow amendment unless:

The party proves “due diligence”

Meaning: despite reasonable efforts, the person could not have raised the matter before trial.

Trial begins when issues are framed and evidence begins.

This proviso is the most commonly litigated part today.

---

What Can Be Amended?

✔️ Correcting wrong facts
✔️ Adding new facts that clarify the cause of action
✔️ Correcting dates, figures, descriptions
✔️ Change in valuation, relief, or prayer clause
✔️ Adding alternative reliefs
✔️ Amendments to written statements are easier (defendant has wider rights)

---

What Cannot Be Amended?

✘ Introducing an entirely new and inconsistent case
✘ Changing the nature of the suit
✘ Setting up a new cause of action after limitation
✘ Amendments that withdraw admissions
✘ Malicious, delaying, or careless amendments

---

Important Supreme Court Case Laws

1. Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy (2009) 10 SCC 84

Court must check:

• Whether the amendment is necessary?
• Whether it introduces a new cause?
• Whether it prejudices the opposite party?
• Whether it avoids multiplicity of litigation?

(A golden test widely used in courts)

---

2. Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480

Amendments should not be rejected only because of procedural technicalities.

---

3. Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409

After trial begins → burden on applicant to prove due diligence.

---

4. Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi (2008) 14 SCC 364

An amendment is allowed if it:

• Helps avoid multiplicity of suits
• Does not change the nature of the dispute

---

---

Example 1: Amendment Allowed

Case Situation:
A plaintiff files a suit for recovery of ₹5,00,000 from the defendant.
Later he discovers that he actually paid ₹6,20,000 due to an overlooked transaction.
He applies to amend the plaint to change the amount.

Court Reasoning:

• Correcting an amount helps decide the real controversy.
• No major prejudice to defendant; can be compensated by costs.
• Trial has not started → easier to allow.

Result: Amendment Allowed

---

Example 2: Amendment NOT Allowed

Situation:
In a suit for injunction (possession not claimed), after trial has begun and evidence is recorded, the plaintiff files an amendment to convert the suit into a possession suit.

Court Reasoning:

• This changes the nature of the suit.
• New cause of action introduced.
• Trial is already in advanced stage → no “due diligence”.

Result: Amendment Rejected

---

Example 3: Amendment Allowed in Written Statement

Situation:
Defendant forgot to mention that the cheque was given as security, not a liability, in a recovery suit.

Later he files an amendment to add this defense.

Court Reasoning:

• Defendant can raise alternative and even inconsistent pleas.
• Helps decide the real issue.
• No major prejudice → plaintiff gets chance to rebut.

📌 Result: Amendment Allowed

---

Example 4: Time-barred Amendment Rejected

Situation:
The plaintiff tries to add a completely new cause of action that arose 5 years ago (beyond limitation).

Court:

• Amendment introducing a time-barred claim is not allowed.

Result: Amendment Rejected

---

Short Court-Ready Summary

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allows amendments if:

1. It is necessary for deciding the real dispute.
2. It does not change the nature of the case.
3. It does not introduce a new cause of action after limitation.
4. It does not cause prejudice to the other side.
5. After trial begins → applicant must prove due diligence.

---

DRAFT APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC

(For Amendment of Pleadings – Plaintiff or Defendant)

---

IN THE COURT OF _________
Civil Suit No. ____ of 20__

ABC ……… Plaintiff/Applicant
Versus
XYZ ……… Defendant/Respondent

---

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT/WRITTEN STATEMENT

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the present suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court at the stage of ______ (before/after framing of issues / before evidence / during evidence).
2. That the applicant filed the plaint/written statement on //20__ setting out the relevant facts as then known.
3. That during the pendency of the suit, the applicant has now discovered certain material facts / clerical mistakes / omissions which could not be incorporated earlier despite exercising due diligence.
   The proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of correctly and completely adjudicating the real questions in controversy.
4. That the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit, nor does it introduce any new or time-barred cause of action. The amendment only seeks to bring clarity and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
5. That no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party, and in any case, the same can be compensated by costs, if this Hon’ble Court deems fit.
6. That the amendment is essential to determine the real issue between the parties and to enable this Hon’ble Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all matters in dispute.
7. That the proposed amendments are reproduced below:
   (Provide here the old paragraph and the proposed amended paragraph in a comparative format) Example format:
   • Existing Para 5: “___________”
   • Proposed Para 5: “___________”
8. That this application is bona fide and in the interest of justice.

---

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Allow the present application and permit the applicant to amend the plaint/written statement as per Para 7 above;
2. Take the amended pleading on record; and
3. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

Applicant
Through Counsel
Name: __________
Date: //20__
Place: _________

---

DRAFT REPLY / OBJECTION TO ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC APPLICATION

IN THE COURT OF _________
Civil Suit No. ____ of 20__

ABC ……… Plaintiff/Non-Applicant
Versus
XYZ ……… Defendant/Applicant

---

REPLY / OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC FILED BY THE APPLICANT

Most Respectfully Submitted:

1. That the applicant’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is misconceived, not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed, as it has been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings.
2. That the suit is already at an advanced stage (state stage: after framing of issues / during evidence / after evidence / at final arguments).
   As per the second proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no amendment can be allowed unless the applicant proves “due diligence”.
   The applicant has failed to show any diligence whatsoever.
3. That the facts sought to be added/amended were well within the knowledge of the applicant since the filing of the suit, yet the applicant deliberately chose not to include them.
   Hence, the application is hit by lack of due diligence, making the amendment impermissible at this stage.
4. That the proposed amendment introduces a completely new and inconsistent case, which would change the nature of the suit and prejudice the rights of the replying party.
   Therefore, such amendment cannot be allowed in law.
5. That the proposed amendment also seeks to introduce a time-barred cause of action, which is expressly prohibited by settled law (SC judgments).
   Permitting such amendment would defeat the principles of limitation and fairness.
6. That the application has been filed only to delay the matter and harass the replying party, which is evident from the timing and nature of the amendments.
7. That allowing such amendment would require reopening of pleadings/evidence, causing irreparable prejudice to the replying party, which cannot be compensated in terms of cost.
8. That the application is devoid of merits, is mala fide, and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

---

PRAYER

In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC,
2. Impose exemplary costs on the applicant for filing a frivolous and delayed application, and
3. Pass any other order(s) as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

Non-Applicant / Opposite Party
Through Counsel
Name: __________
Date: //20__
Place: _________

---