1

CivilSide
Summary
SubTopic1
ProductionofAdditionalEvidenceinAppellateCourt
(Order41Rule27);
01.

Asageneralrule,theAppellateCourtshouldnotadmit

additionalevidenceforthepurposeofthedisposalofanappeal,and
thepartiesarenotentitledtoproduceadditionalevidence,whether
oralordocumentaryintheappellatecourt.TheCode,howeverunder
this rule empowers an appellate court to take additional evidence
subjecttocertainconditions.Thepowerisdiscretionaryandmustbe
exercisedonsoundjudicialprinciplesandintheinterestofjustice.
Additional evidence does not mean evidence over and above the
evidenceledbythepartyinthelowercourt.Thebasicprinciplesfor
theadmissionoftheadditionalevidenceare;
(1)

(i) The party seeking the admission of additional

evidenceshouldbeabletoestablishthatsuchadditionalevidence
could not have been adduced at the first instance with the best
efforts;
(ii) The party affected by the admission of additional
evidenceshouldhaveanopportunitytorebutit;

(iii) The additional evidence must be relevant for the

determinationoftheissue.
02.

For entertaining an application for the production of

additionalevidenceinanappeal,anyoneormoreofthefollowing
conditionshavetobefulfilled.
(i)Thecourtfromwhosedecreetheappealispreferredhas
refusedtoadmitevidencewhichoughttohavebeenadmitted;or
(ii) The party seeking to produce additional evidence
establishesthatnotwithstandingtheexerciseofduediligence,such
evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the
exerciseofduediligence,beproducedbyhimatthetimewhenthe
decreeappealedagainstwaspassed;or
(iii)Theappellatecourtrequiredanydocumenttobeproduced
oranywitnesstobeexaminedtoenableittopronouncejudgmentor
foranyothersubstantialcause.
Substantialcause,whatis;
Substantial ' cause' must be analogous to or of same
categoryasmentionedinclause(a)(b)and(c)ofO.41Rule27(1).
When the parties agree at the appellate stage that
additional evidence should be taken that element can be taken as

constituting substantial cause for fresh evidence under O.41 Rule

27(1)(d).The fact that , if the opinion of the expert be taken and
foundinfavouroftheappellantitwoulddispelthedisbeliefofthe
trialcourtinthedefenceevidencecannotberegardedas'substantial
cause', nor can the non implementation of the order for expert
opinionbytheplaintiffinthecourtbelowbeheldtobesubstantial
cause. Further, the fact that there is convincing and conclusive
evidencetoprovethematterindisputemaybeagroundforreview
butcertainlynotforleadingadditionalevidenceunderO.41R27
especiallywhenthepartywhowantsithashadampleopportunity
and did not avail of the same in the belief that the evidence he
proposedtoleadwouldbesufficient.
That evidence already adduced is unsatisfactory and
insufficientisalsonotasubstantialcause.Northemerefactthatthe
litigantwasnotawareofthedocumentaryevidenceatthetimeof
trial is substantial cause. Negligence of pleader in not tendering
evidenceatproperstageisalsonotsubstantialcause.
Thereisnosufficientcausetoadmitadditionalevidence
whenapointissufficientlycoveredbyanissueandthepartieshad
everyopportunityofproducingevidenceonit.

Recordingofreasonnecessary;
Where a further appeal lies from the decision of the
appellateCourtsuchrecordingofreasonsisnecessaryanduseful
also to the Court of further appeal for deciding whether the
discretionundertherulehasbeenjudiciallyexercisedbytheCourt
below.Theomissiontorecordthereasonmust,therefore,betreated
as a serious defect. It is extremely desirable that when the Court
exercisesitspowerunderR.27itshouldmakeadirectreferenceto
therule,givingitsreasonsinsuchaformthatthereisnoroomfor
doubtthattheCourthasrealisedtheexceptionalnatureofthepowers
thatitisexercising.
CaseLaw;
Inthecaseof MahavirSinghandothersVsNaresh
Chandraandanother,reportedinAIR2001SupremeCourt,134
theHon'bleSupremecourtheldthat"Section107CPCenablesan
appellateCourttotakeadditionalevidenceortorequiresuchother
evidencetobetakensubjecttosuchconditionsandlimitationsasare
prescribed under Order XLI ,Rule 27 C.P.C.. The Court is not,
however,boundunderthecircumstancesmentionedundertheruleto
permit additional evidence and the parties are not entitled, as of

right,totheadmissionofsuchevidenceandthematterisentirelyin
the discretion of the Court, which is, of course, to be exercised
judiciouslyandsparingly.OrderXLI,Rule27,CPCenvisagescertain
circumstanceswhenadditionalevidencecanbeadduced.
PartitionSell of Joint family property by Karta for legal
necessity/benefitofestate;
WhoisKarta?
ThemanagerofthejointfamilyiscalledtheKarta.The
seniormostmalememberofajointHindufamilyisconsideredas
thekartaofthefamilyprovidedheisotherwisefittoactassuchthat
heisnotsufferingfromanyphysicalormentaldeficiency.Heisnot
anagentortrusteeofthefamilybutastheheadofthefamilyheis
thecustodianorguardianofthepropertyandaffairsofthefamily
andoftheinterestofthefamily.
Alienation ; TheKartaormanagercanalienatethecoparcenery
propertybysaleormortgageforlegalnecessityorbenefitofthe
estateorotherwise.Thekartaisnotrequiredtoobtaintheconsentof
theothercoparcenersforalienationandifthealienationisforlegal
necessity,itwillbindtheothercoparceners.Anyalienationmade
subsequenttotherelinquishmentoftheofficewillnotbindtheother

coparceners.Butanalienationbythemanagerfornofamilypurpose
ornecessityandmadewithouttheassentoftheothersisvoidanda
subsequentratificationbytheothermemberscannotvalidateit.
When a junior member is allowed to deal with family
propertiesasifhewasthemanager,anyalienationbyhimforfamily
necessityisbindingonallthemembersofthefamily,includingthe
real manager. Where the joint familypropertyis alienated bythe
kartabutlegalnecessityisnotproved,stillthesaleisbindingonthe
undividedshareofthekarta.Theonlyreasonablelimitationthatcan
be imposed on the karta is that he must act with prudence, and
prudence implies caution as well as foresight and excludes hasty,
recklessandarbitraryconduct.Thesituationistobeassessedonthe
samebasisofthefactsofthesituation.Howeveranalienationmade
foragrosslyinadequateamountevenifforalegalnecessitycannot
beheldtobevalid.Butiflegalnecessityisproved,mereinadequacy
of consideration is no ground for setting aside the sale by the
manager.
ItcannotbehoweversaidtobebeneficialtoaHindujoint
familyforthemanagertopurchasepropertyforwhichthefamilyis
unabletopayandwhenthefamilyisunabletopay,itiscertainlynot

forthebenefitofthefamilythataliabilityshouldbecastuponthe
jointfamilyancestralproperty.Alienationbythemanagingmember
ofthefamilycannotbesaidtobeforlegalnecessity,ifthelegal
remedytorecoverthedebthasbecometimebarred.
Whatislegalnecessity;
The following have been held to be family necessities
withinthemeaningof
(a)paymentofGovernmentrevenueandofdebtswhich
arepayableoutofthefamilyproperty;
(b)maintenanceofcoparcenersandofthemembersof
theirfamilies;
(c)marriageexpensesofmalecoparceners,andofthe
daughtersofcoparceners;
(d) performance of the necessary funeral or family
ceremonies;
(e) costs of necessary litigation in recovering or
preservingtheestate;
(f)costsofdefendingtheheadofthejointfamily,orany
othermemberagainstaseriouscriminalcharge;
(g) payment of debts incurred for family business or
othernecessarypurpose.Inthecaseofamanagerotherthanafather,
itisnotenoughtoshowmerelythatthedebtisapreexistingdebt.
Benefitoftheestate;
Thetermsnecessityandbenefitoftheestatehavebeen
usedsidebysideandtheCourtsarenotagreedastothemeaningto

begiventothe expressionbenefittotheestate.Itisobviousthat
anythingwhichisthenecessitytotheestatemustbeofbenefittoit.
Butthetermbenefitwouldseemtoimportsomethingpositivedone
toenlargeorimprovetheestate,notmerelynegativeactsuchasthe
dischargeofdebtsortheavertingofdisaster.Astowhatismeantby
theexpressionforthebenefitoftheestatetherehasbeenaconflictof
judicialopinion.Accordingtooneview,unlessthetransactionisofa
defensivecharacterinthesensethatitiscalculatedtoprotectthe
estatefromthreateneddangerordestruction,itisnotforthebenefit
oftheestate.Accordingtotheotherview,itiscompetenttotheKarta
toalienateancestralpropertywhenthetransactionisforthepositive
benefitofthefamilyandissuchasaprudentownerwouldcarryout
withtheknowledgeavailabletohimatthetime.Inotherwords,
accordingtothelaterview,theonlyreasonablelimitationwhichcan
be placed on the Karta is that he must act with prudence and
prudenceimpliescaution.
(i)Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseof" Subodhkumar
V/s Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre" (AIR 2007 SC 1324) has
observedthat;
AKartaundoubtedlyhaspowerstoalienateforvaluethe

jointfamilyproperty,eitherforlegalnecessityorforthebenefitof
theestate.Hecandosowiththeconsentofallcoparceners.When
the alienation is for legal necessity, the Karta alienate an interest
which is larger than his undivided interest. When, however, such
alienation is imprudent , it is not binding upon a non consenting
coparcenertotheextentofsuchcoparcener'sshare.
SubTopic2
CondonationofdelayunderSection5ofLimitationAct.Time
specifiedtofilesuitforreliefofdeclarationunderArticle58,For
possessionbasedonpreviouspossessionunder Article64, and
ForpossessionbasedontitleunderArticle65ofLimitationAct;
01.

TheIndianLimitationAct,1963(Act36of1963)isan

Act prescribingtheperiod withinwhichsuitsaskingforvarious

reliefscanbebrought. Section5ofitisanenablingprovisionto
assistthelitigantswhofailedtodoanactwithintheprescribedtime
periodasoriginallyfixedunderthevariousenactments.Forexample
a litigant who failed to file an Appeal before the superior courts
withinthepermissible timeperiodasoriginallyfixedthenhecan
fileitaftertheexpiryoftheprescribedtimeperiodprovidedhehas
toshown''sufficientcause''fornonfilingtheAppealwithinthetime

10

period.Likewisewhilerunningacaseeitherbeforethesubordinates
courts or any superior courts; the litigants has to file necessary
applications under various enactments for smooth running of the
case,butsuchanapplicationhasnotbeenfiledintimethenhecan
fileitlatteronprovidedhehastoshow"sufficientcause"forlate
filingofthesame.
02.

In Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag V/s Ms.

Katijiandothers,A.I.R.1987SC1353,Hon'bleSupremeCourt
observedinparagraphNo.3thatThelegislaturehasconferredthe
power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of The Indian
LimitationActof1963inordertoenabletheCourtstodosubstantial
justicetopartiesbydisposingofmatterson'merits'.Theexpression'
sufficientcause'employedbythelegislatureisadequatelyelasticto
enabletheCourtstoapplythelawinameaningfulmannerwhichsub
servestheendsofjusticethatbeingthelifepurposefortheexistence
oftheinstitutionofCourts.ItiscommonknowledgethatthisCourt
hasbeenmakingajustifiablyliberalapproachinmattersinstitutedin
thisCourt.Butthemessagedoesnotappeartohavepercolateddown
toalltheotherCourtsinthehierarchy.Andsuchaliberalapproach
isadoptedonprincipleasitisrealizedthat:

11

1]

Ordinarilyalitigantdoesnotstandtobenefitbylodging

anappeallate;
2]

Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious

matterbeingthrownoutattheverythresholdandcauseofjustice
beingdefeated.Asagainstthis,whendelayiscondonedthehighest
that can happen is that cause would be decided on merits after
hearingtheparties.
3]

"Evendaysdelaymustbeexplained"doesnotmeanthat

apedanticapproachshouldbemade. Whynotevery hoursdelay,

everysecondsdelay? Thedoctrinemustbeappliedinarational
commonsensepragmaticmanner.
4]

Whensubstantialjusticeandtechnicalconsiderationsare

pittedagainsteachother,causeofsubstantialjusticedeservestobe
preferred for the order side cannot claim to have vested right in
injusticebeingdonebecauseofanondeliberatedelay.
5]

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned

deliberately, or on account culpable negligence, or on account of

malafides.Alitigantdoesnotstandtobenefitbyresortingtodelay
infactherunsaseriousrisk.
6]

It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on

12

accountofitspower tolegalizeinjusticeontechnicalgroundsbut
becauseitiscapableofremovinginjusticeandisexpectedtodoso".
03.

Section5ofTheIndianLimitationAct,1963isapplicable

onlytothesituationwhere thesuitorappealisalreadyfiledand
pendingfordisposal.SupposetheSuitorAppealisnotfiledwithin
thestipulatedtimeperiod,thenthisprovisionisnotapplicabletoget
anextensionoftimeperiodforfilingthesame.
04.

Likewise for the enforcement of the Decrees, Orders

passedbytheCourtoflawthelitigantshasto filean Execution

PetitionbeforetheExecutingCourtbyexercisingtheprovisionsas
enshrinedundertheChapterExecutioninPartII(Sections36to74)
withtheaidofOrderXXIoftheFirstScheduleofCodeofCivil
Procedure,1908(5of1908).ForfilingsuchanExecutionPetition
SectionoftheIndianLimitationAct,1963isstrictlynotapplicable
because the Execution Petition should be filed within the time
period asoriginally fixed under the Enactments failingwhichthe
litigants/DecreeHolderintheeyesoflawhadexhaustedhislawful
remedies as such he cannot thereafter enforcing his rights as
enshrinedundertheDecrees,Ordersetc,passedbytheCourtsinhis
favour.

13

05.

Article58of IndianLimitationAct,willapplytoasuit

whichisasuitfordeclarationsimpliciter. ThisArticlecoversall
declarations, other than those, mentioned in Article 57. It is a
residuaryArticlefor declarations. Itprovidesthattoobtainany
declaration,thelimitationisthreeyearsfromthedateofwhenthe
righttosuefirstaccrues.
06.

InIndia,theLimitationAct,1963isthelegislationthat

governstheperiodwithinwhichsuitsaretobefiled,withrelevant
provisionsfordelay,condonationthereofetc.Ifitisnotfiledwithin
prescribed period of limitation, then the remedy is lost. The
principle'limitationextinguishestheremedy,butonlytherightto
claimitinaCourtoflawextinguished.Anexceptiontothisgeneral
rule is the law of prescriptive rights, whereby the right itself is
destroyed.Section27oftheIndianLimitationAct,1963proclaims.
" Section 27: Extinguishment of Right to Property at the
determination of the period hereby limited to any person for
institutingasuitfor possessionofanyproperty,hisrighttosuch
propertyshallbeextinguished".
Article64&Article65ofLimitationAct:
07.

Article65relatestosuitsforpossessionbasedontitle

14

whileArticle64dealswithsuitsbasedonpossessionandnotontitle.
InthecaseofArticle64,theonusliesontheplaintiffstoprovehis
possessionwithin12years,whileinthecaseofArticle65itisforthe
defendanttoprovewhenhispossessionbecameadverse. Inasuit
governedbyArticle64thenatureofpossessionisnotmaterialbut
underArticle65thepossessiontobeamaterialisadversepossession
ofthedefendant.
08.

In RamaiahV/sNarayanaReddy,(2004AIRSCW

4695),itispointedoutbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtthattheArticle
64 is restricted to suits for possession on dispossession or
discontinuance of possession, whereas Article 65 is the residuary
Articleandappliesonsuitsforpossessionnototherwiseprovided
for,thatthesuitsbasedontheplaintiffstitleinwhichthereisno
allegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession alone
canfallwithinArticle65andthatthequestionwhetherArticle64
or Article65appliestoaparticularsuithastobedecidedbythe
pleadingsandtheplaintiffcannotinvokeArticle65onsuppressing
materialfacts.
UnderArticle64limitationcommencesfromthedateof
dispossessionwhereasunderArticle65itcommencesfromthedate

15

whenthepossessionofthedefendantbecameadverse.
09.

Theexplanation(a)to Article65indicatesasuitbya

remainderman,arevisioner(otherthanalandlord)oradeviseefor
possessionoftheproperty willattract Article65. Anestatein
remainderisthatexpectantportionorulteriorestate,onthecreation
of a particular estate, is at the same time conveyed away, by the
owner to another who is to enjoy it immediately after the
determinationofsuchparticularestate.Aremainderdoesnotlike
reversion,ariseanyoperationoflaw,butisalwayscreatedbyactof
parties.
10.

Explanation (b) to the Article 65 covers the suits for

possessionofimmovablepropertybyaHinduoraMuslimentitledto
possessiontosuchpropertyonthedeathofHinduorMuslimfemale.
Theword'Hindu'forthepurposeofthisExplanationmeansnotonly
apersonwhoisethnologicalaHindubutalsoapersonwhohasthe
legalstatusofHinduandisgovernedinthematterofinheritanceby
theHinduLaw. InDhanurjayaV/sSukra(AIR1987Ori.205),
theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatapersonborntoaHindu
fatherandChristianmotherifbroughtupasaHinduisalsoaHindu.
InordertoattracttheExplanation(B)toArticle65,thefollowing

16

conditionsarerequired:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

11.

ThedeceasedshouldhavebeenaHinduorMuslim
femalewithalimitedestate;
the deceased as well as the plaintiff should both of
thembeHindusorMuslims;
thesuitbytheplaintiffshouldbeforpossession;
thepropertyshouldbeimmovable;
therighttopossessionshouldariseonthedeathofthe
femalelimitedowner;and
thepersonwhoisinpossessionofsuchimmovable
propertyshouldbeastranger.
TheExplanation(b)toArticle65appliesonlytosuitsby

revisioner'sinrespectofthepropertyofwhichtheyareentitledto
recoveryofpossessionandwhichwasinpossessionofthedefendant
onthedateifdeathofthefemale.
Explanation (c) to Article 65 provides that where the
judgment debtor was out of possession at the time of the sale in
executionofadecree,inanysuitforpossessionbythepurchaserhe
shallbedeemedtobetherepresentativeofthejudgmentdebtor.
12.

TheeffectofExplanation(c)isthatthetimewhichhas

runagainstthejudgmentdebtorwithacauseofactionwillbeadded
ontothetimewhichrunsagainsttheauctionpurchasertoreckon
totalperiodoflimitationunder Article65. Sotheentireperiod

17

whichhasrunagainstthejudgmentdebtorandtheauctionpurchaser
willhavetobereckonedforcomputingtheperiodoflimitation.
13.

InasuitfallingunderArticle65plaintiffmustestablish

histitletotheproperty;heneednotprovethathewasinpossession
within12years.Ifhefailstoprovehistitlethesuitfails,andthe
questionofadversepossessiondoesnotariseinsuchacase.
InAnnasahebV/sBalwant(AIR1995SC895),ithas
beenheldthatunderArticle65,theburdenisonthedefendantsto
proveaffirmativelythatheisinpossessioninhostileassertioni.e.a
possessionwhichisexpresslyorimpliedlyindenialofthetitleofthe
trueowner.
Conclusion;

The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribed limitation

withaviewtoseethatalitigantdoesnotdragonthelitigation.The
lawonlimitationkeepsacheckonfilingofcasesandprescribestime
periodwithinwhichitshouldbefiledand thepersoncangetthe
remedyconveniently. Thelawofcondonationofdelaykeepsthe
principleofnaturaljusticealiveandalsostatesthefactthateachand
everyindividualmaynotbeabletoapproachtheCourtduesome
problem. Thus,Section5givesanopportunitytoalitiganttofile
applicationsbeyondtheprescribedperiodoflimitationprovided;he

18

isabletoestablishthathewaspreventedbysufficientcausefrom
approachingtheCourtwithinthesaidperiod.
SubTopic3
Criteriaforgrantofamendmenttothepleadings;

PleadingsmeansplaintorwrittenstatementasperOrder

VIRule1oftheC.P.C. Pleadingsarestatementinwritingstating
whatcontentionswillbeatthetrialoftheparty. Itisanessential
requirementofpleadingthatmaterialfactandnecessaryparticulars
mustbestatedinthepleadings.Butmanyatimethepartymayfind
itnecessarytoamendhispleadingsbeforeorduringthetrialofthe
case.Rule17ofOrderVIprovidetheprovisionofamendmentofthe
pleadings. An amendment can be by way of altering something,
modifyingsomething,deletingsomething.
Power to allow the amendment is wide and can be
exercisedatanystageofthe proceedings. The amendment has to
confinetothequestionincontroversybetweentheparties.OrderVI,
Rule 17 can not be utilized by the parties to go beyond the very
disputeraisedbytheparties.Thus,unlessthereislisbetweenthe
partiestheamendmentcannotbeallowed.
ThepurposeandobjectofOrderVIRule17oftheCode

19

is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such

mannerandonsuchtermsasmaybejust. Amendmentcannotbe
claimedas a matter ofright and under all circumstances, but the
Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper
technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule
particularly,incaseswhichtheothersidecanbecompensatedwith
costs.Normally,amendmentsareallowedinthepleadingstoavoid
multiplicity of litigations. It enables the Court to effectively
adjudicateupontherealcontroversyinthesuit. Theaforesaidrule
hasbeenlaiddownintheCaseofRameshKumarAgrawalVs
RajmalaExportsPvt.Ltd.(2012)5,SCC337.
Thecourtsshouldtrythemeritsofthecase,thatcome
beforethemandshouldsubsequentlyallow. Allamendmentsthat
maybe necessary or determiningthe real question in controversy
beforethepartiesprovided,itdoesnotcauseinjusticeorprejudiceto
theotherside.OrderVIRule17consistsoftwoparts:whereasthe
firstpartisdiscretionary (may)andleavesittothecourttoorder
amendmentofpleading.Thesecondpartisimperative(shall)and
enjoinsthecourttoallowallamendments,whicharenecessaryfor
thepurposeofdeterminingtherealquestionincontroversybefore

20

theparties.Therealcontroversytestisthebasicorcardinaltestand
it is the primary duty of the court to decide whether such an
amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the
parties. If it is, theamendment willbeallowed,ifitisnotthe
amendmentwillberefused.
Leavetoamendwhengiven;
Asageneralrule,leavetoamendwillbegrantedsoasto
enabletherealquestioninissuebetweenthepartiestoberaisedon
thepleadings,wheretheamendmentwilloccasionnoinjurytothe
oppositeparty,exceptsuchascanbesufficientlycompensatedforby
costsorothertermstobeimposedbytheorder.Technicalitiesoflaw
shouldnotbepermittedtohampertheCourtintheadministrationof
justicebetweentheparties. Generallytheamendmentsareallowed
in the pleadings, to avoid uncalled or multiplicity of litigation.
Furtheramendmentingeneralshouldnotberefusedinamechanical
and casual manner. When the law confers discretion upon an
Authority,it isexpectedthatthe discretionwill be exercisedina
judiciousmanner.TheCourtcantakenoticeofsubsequenteventand
cangrantappropriatereliefintheinterestofjustice.
Allamendmentsoughttobeallowedwhichsatisfythetwo

21

conditionsa)ofnotworkinginjusticetotheotherside,andb)of
beingnecessaryforthepurposeofdeterminingtherealquestionin
controversy between the parties. Therefore,the main points to be
considered before a parties allowed to amend his pleadings are:
firstly, whether the amendment is necessary for the
determinationoftherealquestionincontroversy,andsecondly,can
theamendmentbeallowedwithoutinjusticetotheotherside.
Thefirstconditionwhichmustbesatisfiedbeforethe
amendmentcanbeallowedbythecourtiswhethersuchamendment
isnecessaryforthedeterminationoftherealquestionincontroversy.
If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment should not be
allowedeventhoughthecourtmay thinkthatthepartyseekingthe
amendmentwillnotbeabletoprovetheamendedplea.Thisisthe
basistestwhichgovernthecourt'suncharteredpowersofamendment
ofpleading.
Thesecondconditionisalsoequallyimportantaccordingto
whichnoamendmentwillbeallowedwhichwillcauseinjusticeto
the opposite party. It is settled law that the amendment can be
allowedifitcanbemadewithoutinjusticetotheotherside.Butitis
alsocardinalrulethatthereisnoinjusticeiftheothersidecanbe

22

compensatedbycosts.
LeavetoAmendwhenRefused;
Itfollowsfromwhathasbeenstatedabovethatleaveto
amendshouldberefused.(1)

Where the amendment is not

necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in

controversybetweentheparties,aswhereitis
(i)merelytechnical,or
(ii)uselessandofnosubstance.
(2)Wheretheplaintiff'ssuitwouldbewhollydisplacedbythe
proposedamendment.
(3)Wheretheeffectoftheamendmentwouldbetotakeaway
fromthedefendant,alegalrightwhichhasaccruedtohimbylapse
oftime.
(4)Wheretheamendmentwouldintroduceatotallydifferent,
newandinconsistentcase,andtheapplicationismadeatalatestage
oftheproceedings.
(5)Wheretheapplicationforamendmentisnotingoodfaith.
Generallyinfollowingcasesleavetoamendwillberefusedby
thecourt:
1]Leavetoamendwillberefusedwheretheamendmentis

23

not necessary for the purpose ofdetermining the real questionin

controversy between the parties. As discussed above the real
controversytestisthebasictestanditistheprimarydutyofthe
courttodecidewhethersuchamendmentisnecessarytodecidethe
real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be
allowed;ifitisnot,theamendmentwillberefused.Therefore,ifthe
amendment is not necessary or is merely technical or useless or
withoutanysubstance,itwillberefused.
2] Leavetoamendwillberefusedifitintroducesatotally
different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental
characterofthesuitordefence.
3] Leave to amend will be refused where the effect of the
proposedamendmentistotakeawayfromtheothersidealegalright
accruedinhisfavour.
4] Leavetoamendwillberefusedwheretheapplicationfor
amendmentisnotmadeingoodfaith. Asageneralrule,leaveto
amendoughtnottobegrantediftheapplicanthasactedmalafide.
Wantofbonafidesmaybeinferredfromthecircumstancesofthe
case.Whenthereisnosubstantialgroundforthecaseproposedto
besetupbytheamendment,ortheobjectistodefeatordelaythe

24

plaintiffsclaim,ormerelytoreagitatethesamequestionandlead
furtherevidence,theamendmentwasnotgrantedasnotbeingbona
fide.
Subsequentevents;
Asgeneralrule,everylitigationmustbedeterminedonthe
basisoffactsexistedonthedateoffilingofthesuit.Acourtmay,
however, take into account subsequent events in order to shorten
litigation or to preserve, protect and safeguard right of both the
partiesandtosubservetheendsofjustice.Forthatpurpose,acourt
mayallowamendmentinpleadingsoftheparties.
Meritsnottobeconsidered;
Whileconsideringwhetheranapplicationforamendment
should or should not be allowed, the court should not to go into
correctnessorfalsityofthecaseintheamendment.Themeritsof
theamendmentsoughttobeincorporatedbywayofamendmentare
nottobejudgedatthestageofallowingprayerforamendment.
Inthecaseof RevajeetuBuilders&DevelopresV/s
Narayanswamy&sonsandothersreportedin(2009)10SCC84
, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down, factors to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for

25

amendment.
(1)whethertheamendmentsoughtisimperativefor proper
andeffectiveadjudicationofthecase;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
malafide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
termsofmoney;
(4)refusingamendmentwouldinfactleadtoinjusticeor lead
tomultiplelitigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentallychangesthe nature and character of the
case;and
(6)asageneralrule,thecourtshoulddecline amendments if
afreshsuitontheamendedclaimswould be barred by
limitationonthedateofapplication.
Conclusion;
TheaboveprinciplesmakeitclearthatCourtshaveample
power to allow the application for amendment of the plaint.
However,itmustbesatisfiedthatthesameisrequiredintheinterest
ofjusticeandforthepurposeofdeterminationofrealquestionin
controversybetweentheparties.

Withthis,summaryisconcluded.
***