-
by sayum
03 July 2026 10:58 AM
“Delay Alone Cannot Defeat Justice; Amendment Must Serve Real Controversy”, Calcutta High Court delivered a crucial ruling reaffirming the liberal approach to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Setting aside the trial court’s refusal, Justice Shampa Sarkar held that courts cannot test the validity of a document at the stage of amendment and delay by itself is not a ground to reject such pleas. The judgment strengthens the principle that procedural rules must advance justice rather than obstruct it.
The petitioner, a widow from an underprivileged background working as a domestic help, approached the court alleging that her employer had fraudulently procured a Deed of Gift in his favour by misrepresentation and misuse of her trust. She claimed that her signatures were taken on blank papers under the pretext of executing a Power of Attorney.
Subsequently, the property was transferred to third parties, leading to multiple layers of litigation. During cross-examination of a defence witness, it surfaced that a Deed of Revocation dated 13 February 2013 had been executed by the petitioner but was not incorporated in the plaint due to “bona fide mistake and inadvertence.”
An application was therefore filed seeking amendment of the plaint to include the fact of revocation along with an additional prayer. The trial court, however, rejected the plea, holding the revocation deed invalid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act and irrelevant to the dispute.
The High Court was confronted with the fundamental question of how far a court can go while deciding an application for amendment of pleadings.
Justice Sarkar categorically held that the trial court had committed a jurisdictional error by entering into the merits of the proposed amendment. The Court observed:
“The learned court should not have gone into the validity of the Deed of Revocation… The legal consequences… should be decided at the final stage of the suit.”
Reiterating settled law, the Court emphasized:
“Delay is no ground for refusal of prayer for amendment.”
The Court also clarified that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not meant to create a rigid bar but to prevent abuse, and must be applied with a justice-oriented approach.
The High Court took note of the petitioner’s socio-economic condition, observing that she was an “uneducated and underprivileged widow” who had to depend entirely on legal advice. The omission of the revocation deed was found to be neither deliberate nor mala fide.
The Court held that the amendment:
Rejecting the trial court’s reasoning on Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, the High Court clarified that such findings were premature:
“The merits of the amendment should not have been looked into.”
It further observed that even if there was delay, the same could be compensated by costs and could not be used to shut out a legitimate claim, especially when no irreparable prejudice was caused to the defendants.
The Court also underscored that procedural law is intended to facilitate justice:
“Order VI Rule 17… cannot operate as an absolute bar… the defendants can be compensated with cost.”
Allowing the revisional application, the Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order and permitted the amendment subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 as costs. The plaintiff was directed to file the amended plaint within four weeks, with liberty granted to the defendants to respond and lead further evidence.
The ruling stands as a strong reaffirmation that courts must adopt a liberal, justice-centric approach in matters of pleadings and must refrain from prematurely adjudicating substantive rights at the amendment stage.
Date of Decision: 18/03/2026
