Amendment at Rebuttal Stage Introducing a New Cause of Action is Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Amendment Cannot Be Allowed to Substitute the Entire Plaint and Change the Suit from Permanent Injunction to One for Specific Performance” - Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that an amendment at the rebuttal stage of a civil suit that seeks to entirely change the nature of the original claim — from a suit for permanent injunction to one for declaration, specific performance, and symbolic possession — is legally impermissible. Justice Alka Sarin, allowing the revision petition, set aside the trial court’s order permitting such amendment and held that the change was not a mere correction but a complete transformation of the suit, requiring a de novo trial.

"Such an amendment cannot be permitted in law as it sets up a totally new case" — Justice Alka Sarin

The Court emphasized that the proposed amendment was not incidental or clarificatory but one that fundamentally altered the original cause of action:

“The suit initially was for permanent injunction and now by way of the amendment the nature of the suit is sought to be changed, which cannot be permitted in law… The amendment now sought would amount a de novo trial inasmuch as fresh issues would be required to be framed and fresh evidence would have to be led.”

The trial court had erroneously accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the amendment was minor and essential for complete adjudication, even though the proposed changes redefined the nature of relief, substituted core pleadings, and attempted to introduce a new contractual claim.

The plaintiff had originally filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2014, claiming ownership and possession over a 0 kanal 10 marla plot allegedly purchased in 1994 through an unregistered document. The defendants refuted this and produced a registered sale deed from 2014 in favor of petitioner Baldei, with actual physical possession transferred.

After years of litigation and at the rebuttal stage, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint — not only revising factual assertions but also converting the relief sought from injunction to declaration of title, specific performance, and symbolic possession, citing an agreement to sell from 1994.

Court Cites Supreme Court: “Amendment Changing the Nature of Suit Must Be Disallowed”

Referring to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 851], the Court reiterated that:

“A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless… the amendment changes the nature of the suit, or by way of amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.”

The judgment quotes Para 70(iv) of Sanjeev Builders, stressing: “Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed.”

Justice Sarin observed that the amendment in question not only changed the relief but was based on a new set of facts that had not been pleaded initially. The delay in seeking the amendment — nearly four years after the sale deed came to knowledge — was also found to be unexplained and unjustified.

“The amendment sought was not for effective adjudication of existing issues, but for introduction of an entirely new claim”

Rejecting the plaintiff’s justification that the sale deed was discovered only in 2014, the Court noted:

“There is absolutely no reason forthcoming from the amendment application as to why the plaintiff did not amend the suit or seek to challenge the sale deed till 2018.”

This unexplained delay, coupled with the introduction of a new cause of action, was deemed sufficient to reject the amendment.

Trial Court’s Order Quashed, Revision Allowed

Setting aside the trial court's order dated 05.07.2019, the High Court concluded:

“The impugned order… cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the present revision petition stands allowed and the amendment application… is dismissed.”

The judgment reinforces the principle that Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not permit litigants to reinvent the nature of a suit mid-trial, especially at advanced stages. Courts are empowered to allow amendments to clarify or correct pleadings, not to substitute the core of a claim under the guise of procedural justice.

Date of Decision: 05 May 2025