Amendments That Do Not Change the Nature of Suit or Introduce Time-Barred Claims Should Be Allowed: P&H High Court

In a significant ruling Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s decision to allow an amendment to the plaint in a recovery suit. The Court ruled that "amendments that do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit and do not introduce time-barred claims should be permitted to ensure effective adjudication."

The petitioner-defendant sought to set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, on February 13, 2024, which had allowed M/s Sunder Steel Products to amend their plaint. The petitioner argued that the amendments introduced time-barred claims and added new defendants who were never partners of the firm, rendering the amendment legally unsustainable. The High Court, however, rejected these contentions and upheld the trial court’s decision.

"Amendment Necessary for Proper Adjudication" – High Court Dismisses Objections Against New Defendants
The petitioner-defendant contended that the amendment sought to add new individuals as defendants, claiming they were partners of the firm when they were not. It was further argued that the proposed changes altered the original structure of the suit, allowing the plaintiffs to bring in additional claims beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court ruled that "an amendment does not automatically become impermissible merely because new parties are added. The question of whether they were indeed partners is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground to reject the amendment at this stage."

Referring to settled legal principles, the Court observed that "amendments that help determine the real issues in controversy and do not fundamentally change the nature of the suit should be allowed. The mere addition of defendants does not amount to changing the cause of action or the nature of the suit."

"Amendments Do Not Introduce a Time-Barred Claim" – High Court Finds No Legal Bar to the Changes
The petitioner argued that the amendment sought to introduce claims that were already barred by limitation, thereby violating the legal principle that a party cannot circumvent limitation laws through amendment.

Addressing this contention, the High Court found that the original plaint itself had stated that the cause of action arose from the date of the bills and the last payment made on August 3, 2019. Since the amendment application was filed on August 2, 2022—well within the three-year limitation period—the claim could not be considered time-barred.

The Court ruled that "when an amendment does not introduce a fresh cause of action but merely clarifies or elaborates existing claims, it should not be rejected on limitation grounds. At best, the issue of limitation can be framed and decided at trial, but it cannot be a basis to deny an amendment outright."

"Commercial Courts Act Not Violated" – High Court Rejects Argument on Mediation Requirement
The petitioner further contended that the amendment bypassed mandatory mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which requires pre-litigation mediation before filing commercial suits.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court clarified that "the suit in question was being tried by a regular civil court and not a Commercial Court. The mandatory mediation provision applies only to commercial disputes before Commercial Courts and has no relevance in this case."

The Court further noted that "if the petitioner believes the dispute qualifies as a commercial matter, they have remedies under law to seek proper redress. However, this cannot be a ground to deny a legitimate amendment to the plaint."

"Liberal Approach to Amendments Ensures Complete Justice" – High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Order
Summarizing the legal principles governing amendments, the Court reiterated that:

•    "The power to allow amendments should be exercised liberally if it serves the interest of justice and prevents multiple litigations."
•    "The amendment must not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, introduce an entirely new cause of action, or take away a vested right of the opposing party."
•    "Where an amendment merely seeks to elaborate on existing claims and does not prejudice the opposing party, it should be allowed, especially if it aids in the proper adjudication of the dispute."

The Court found that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action, were filed within the limitation period, and did not fundamentally alter the suit. It further observed that the trial court had carefully considered all aspects before allowing the amendment, and no jurisdictional error was committed.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court ruled that "no illegality or jurisdictional error was committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment. The impugned order does not warrant any interference, and the amendment shall stand."

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the liberal approach towards amendments in civil suits, ensuring that technical objections do not obstruct substantive justice. The ruling clarifies that "amendments that do not introduce time-barred claims or fundamentally alter the suit should be allowed to facilitate complete and effective adjudication."

By rejecting hyper-technical objections and emphasizing the need for fairness in litigation, the Court has ensured that procedural rigidity does not stand in the way of justice.

Date of Decision: 01 March 2025