Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Belated Amendment Of Plaint Which Alters Nature Of Suit And Prejudices Accrued Rights Cannot Be Allowed: Calcutta High Court

"The proposed amendment also should not defeat the legal right accrued to the opposite party on account of lapse of time to bring on record the proposed amendment by the plaintiff." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 25, 2026, held that an application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be granted at a belated stage if it attempts to introduce a new cause of action or alters the fundamental nature of the suit to the prejudice of the defendant's accrued rights.

A bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that while courts have wide discretion, such powers must be exercised with "care and circumspection," particularly when a party has remained a "fence-sitter" despite having knowledge of the facts for several years.

The petitioners challenged an order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampore, which had allowed the plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of a plaint filed in 2018. The defendants had disclosed their defense via a written statement in 2019, specifically pleading a 1976 gift deed as the basis for their ownership. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint in 2023, four years later, to challenge the legality of said gift deed after substantial evidence had already been recorded in the partition suit.

The primary question before the court was whether an amendment of the plaint could be allowed after the commencement of trial when the plaintiff failed to demonstrate "due diligence" as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the proposed amendment altered the nature of the suit and prejudiced the accrued rights of the defendants.

The court emphasized that the primary object of judicial procedure is to resolve the real controversy between parties, but this does not grant a license to ignore statutory mandates regarding limitation and procedural fairness. The bench noted that while the law allows for amendments to rectify errors, it does not permit a party to introduce a "new set of ideas" or a "new cause of action" that effectively renders the previous proceedings futile.

Court Emphasizes On Due Diligence

The court noted that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the defendants’ reliance on the gift deed since 2019. By waiting until 2023 to challenge it, the plaintiff failed the test of due diligence. The court remarked that such belated amendments, which seek to frustrate the defense after the trial has progressed, are inherently prejudicial and must be rejected to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Principles Of Amendment Reaffirmed

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, the court held that while courts should be generous in allowing amendments to settle real issues, this is subject to the strict condition that it does not prejudice the other side or withdraw admitted facts. In the present case, the court found the amendment to be a tactical attempt to alter the suit's nature rather than a mere clarification.

"The opposite party/plaintiff rather appears to be a fence sitter for a prolonged period of time and, therefore, cannot at this stage be granted opportunity to frustrate the accrued right of the petitioners/defendants on the basis of the pleadings and evidence collected in the case so far."

Court Rejects Trial Court’s Order

The High Court categorically stated that the trial court’s order suffered from a "non-application of mind" and ignored the settled legal position. By allowing the amendment after years of silence and active participation in the trial, the trial court had acted in gross violation of the procedural safeguards provided under the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court consequently set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to proceed with the existing pleadings and evidence.

The High Court allowed the revision petition, ruling that the plaintiff’s belated attempt to amend the plaint was an abuse of process. The order emphasizes that litigants cannot be permitted to use the amendment procedure as a tool to delay trials or overcome tactical disadvantages created by their own earlier omissions.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026