Introduction

The Court processes and regulations are meant to promote substantial justice, according to
the premise maintained in Civil Procedural Law. Order VI Rule 17 is an example of such
procedural regulation that is intended to aid justice by allowing parties to alter their pleadings
when required.

Order VI “Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 explains the term pleading in
amendment of pleadings. A pleading is defined generically as a plaint or a written
declaration.1 While a Plaint is a written declaration made by a Plaintiff to establish his claim,
a Written Statement is supplied by a Defendant from his side of the case in that trial within
thirty days of the summons being issued under Order VIII Rule 1.2”

Pleadings are written statements sent by each party to his opponent alternately, explaining
what his contentions will be at the trial and providing all such facts as his opponent needs to
know in order to prepare his case in response. Material facts and required particulars must be
provided in the pleadings, and conclusions cannot be made on reasons other than those
indicated in the pleadings. However, before or during the trial of the matter, the party may
find it essential to change his pleadings.

In a civil litigation, pleadings play a crucial part in influencing the result by allowing the
plaintiff to explain the basis for legal action and the defendant to justify his defence
correspondingly. They cannot be modified except at the Judge's discretion, and the trial is
limited to the pleadings submitted.

This “is why the Civil Jurisprudence stresses that a pleading must be properly crafted,
including only important material facts with no application of law, excluding evidence
supplied to further prove the claim, and being in a succinct manner.

On rare situations, it may be necessary for a party to revise such pleadings before or during a
trial in order to restructure their arguments for determining the rights in issue. This may arise
when the Court or parties learn of new facts, or when one party is not fully prepared for the
specific concerns brought by the other side. Order VI Rule 17 applies in such cases.”

Following the advice of the Justice Malimath Committee and the Law Commission, this rule
was withdrawn from the CPC to facilitate the expeditious disposition of matters;

1
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 1.
2
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 1.
nevertheless, its importance was recognised and it was reintroduced. Later in 2002, the
Legislature examined the complaints of attorneys and the general public to removing Rule 17
from Or. 6 C.P.C. and restored it with the adoption and insertion of the three aforementioned
provisos to the Rule 17.3 It is “required because the Court expects each party to deliver their
case in the manner that they want. Because there can be no civil action if there are no
pleadings, an alteration to such a pleading has a significant influence on the parties' rights in
the case at hand.”

Order 6 CPC Rule 17 Interpretation

The principles of interpretation that must be followed in interpreting this section are
straightforward. The provision is broken into two sections. The first portion is discretionary
("may") and allows for broad and unrestricted authority to make decisions on a case-by-case
basis whenever it seems to be reasonable. The court may or may not allow the change to the
procedure to determine the actual issues in dispute. The Court's approach should be liberal
rather than speculative. As a result, amending proceedings is not a right; rather, it is at the
discretion of the court. The second section is obligatory ("Shall") and mandates the court to
consider all applications required for finding the true issue between the parties if the court
determines that the parties could not have raised the problem notwithstanding reasonable
diligence prior to the start of the trial. Such discretion, however, must be used by using the
judicial intellect in accordance with well-established standards. The Supreme Court ruled in
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Ors. 4 that the purpose of
introducing the proviso is to avoid frivolous motions submitted to extend the trial.

3
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, No. 22.
4
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu V. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 344.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court explored the legislative rationale behind adding the proviso to
Rule 17 of Order 6 of the CPC in Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and others.5
According to paragraph 7 of the stated ruling, the requirements of Order 6 Rule 17 of the
CPC are required. The court's jurisdiction to hear an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the
CPC is revoked unless the criteria antecedent are met, i.e., the court must conclude that
despite reasonable diligence, the parties could not have addressed the subject before the start
of trial. Thus, the proviso indicates that once the trial begins, no amendments 4 should be
allowed unless it is deemed necessary due to subsequent events such as a change in law
following the framing of the issues or due to any fact coming to the applicant's knowledge
after the framing of the issues that he could not have discovered with due diligence before the
issues were framed.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of Rule 17 is to reduce litigation, delay, and the number of
lawsuits. As a result, it has been included to perform justice rather than to exclude justice
only on the basis of pleadings. In P.H. Patil vs. K.S. Patil 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated
that "Courts should be guided by the merits of the cases that come before them and should
thus allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in
controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other
side."

CARDINAL TEST: The cardinal test for determining an amendment application is: I
Whether the amendment is required for the decision of the true issue in controversy? (ii) Can
the alteration be approved without causing harm to the opposing party? If the first criteria is
met, that the change is required to resolve the "true issue" between the parties, the
amendment should be permitted. In “other words, if there is no need to resolve the "actual
issue" between the parties, the amendment should be rejected. The second requirement, like
the first, is equally crucial, and states that no alteration shall be permitted that may bring
injustice to the opposing party. It is established law that the adjustment may be made if the
other side is not harmed. However, it is also a cardinal rule that no injustice exists if the
opposite side may be reimbursed by expenses.”

5
Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another., AIR 2009 SC 1433.
6
P.H. Patil vs. K.S. Patil.,1 AIR 1957 SC 363.
Amending pleadings in civil court

According to the history of common law, the procedure of amending pleadings was so strict
that even slight modifications were not considered by the Court of Law.7

However, the need of updating pleadings in conducting a fair trial was recognised in the case
Cropper v. Smith8. It was noted in the case that the aim of courts is to decide the rights of the
parties, not to blame them for errors in behaviour and diligence committed when drafting the
petition.

The Court “may enable any party to revise or amend his pleadings at any stage of the
proceedings in such way and on such conditions as may be reasonable, and all such revisions
shall be allowed as may be required for the purpose of finding the genuine matters in
contention between the parties.9"

Rule 17 of Order VI

Provided, however, that no application for modification will be accepted after trial has begun,
unless the Court concludes that, despite reasonable effort, the party could not have raised the
subject before trial began.10

The 2002 Amendment included a new provision.

"A simple interpretation shows that the term "may" in the first part signifies that the civil
court has entire discretion to decide whether or not to approve a specific change in a
procedure where it thinks it to be reasonable.11

7
William Searle Holdsworth et al., A history of English law (3 ed. 1923).
8
Cropper v. Smith, [1884] 29 Ch D 700.
9
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17.

10
Scope and Extent of Amendment of Pleadings.

11
Syam Kumar (JCJ Korutla), Paper Presentation on Amendment of Pleadings, 
As a result, a party cannot assert his right to alter a pleading. The term "must" indicates that
the judges' discretion must be used generously and judiciously in line with specific standards.

For example, if a party was unable to raise a specific problem in the first pleading despite due
diligence, the court must approve an application for revising pleading in such a situation in
order to resolve the matter between the parties. The provision serves as a deterrent to
petitions seeking to postpone the trial after it has begun.

The procedure of changing a pleading begins with the filing of an application with the
determining Civil Court outlining the reason for the revision. If the Civil Judge believes that
such revisions would be helpful in resolving the situation at hand, he will approve Order VI
Rule 17. Following that, this party must guarantee that the amended pleadings are filed before
the deadline.12

Order “VI Rules 16, 18, 28, and 29 also address the modification of pleadings. Order VI Rule
16 empowers the Court to strike or alter pleadings that it considers scandalous, superfluous to
a fair trial, or abuses the Court's procedure.13

According to Order VI Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if a party applies for an
amendment of pleading and the court allows it, but the party fails to change it within 14 days
or as stipulated, the party is precluded from doing so.”

Additionally, according to Order VI Rules 28 and 29, a party desiring to modify its pleadings
must submit an application with a request, and a party's legal heirs must submit a note for a
consequential revision.14 A party may be permitted to bring up the issue in a subsequent
action if an amendment seeking ancillary relief, such as financial relief, is rejected in certain
circumstances.15

However, when a party requests a pleading change based on constructive res judicata, the
Civil Court must deny the request. This regulation is not limited to conventional civil
12
Haridas Girdhardas v. Vasadaraja Pillai, AIR 1971 SC 2336.
13
Modi Spg. & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., (1976) 4 SCC 320.
14
Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, The 222nd Law Commission Report on Need for Justice-dispensation through
ADR (2009).
15
A. Mohan, Justice, Courts and Delays (2009).
processes; a presiding judge might order it in execution, insolvency, arbitration, or
matrimonial actions.

Amending Rejected Pleadings

In most cases, a court would deny a party's motion to modify pleadings because they either
do not fulfil the two conditions, the omission was made negligently, or the revised pleadings
affect the core substance of the pleading originally submitted.

The Allahabad High Court ruled in Modi Spg. & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram &
Co16. that in circumstances where changed pleadings are contradictory or create a new and
distinct matter, leave should be denied.

According to the 'Doctrine Of Relation Back,' the Court has the authority to instruct where
an amendment to a pleading does not link back to the date of application, particularly in
circumstances involving misdescription in suit.

The proviso means that an application for pleading change may not be filed after the start of a
trial unless there is due diligence.17

In Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh18, the Supreme Court established what constitutes the
start of a trial.

The term "trial commencement" as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure shall be interpreted narrowly to signify the final hearing of the action, examination
of witnesses, submission of documents, and addressing of arguments.

Amending Pleadings in a Civil Suit Causes Issues

Legal scholars have observed that the likelihood of misuse rises when discretion is given
more latitude. Similar to Order VI Rule 17, which is not a party's right and may only be
granted at the court's discretion, it has been abused willfully to stall civil actions in order to
make the claim time-barred under the Limitation Act.
16
Modi Spg. & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., (1976) 4 SCC 320.
17
Syam Kumar, supra note 10.
18
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2832.
Between the time of filing a pleading and the trial, the facts of a case may change
significantly, forcing the need to amend pleadings to reflect these changes. The idea that
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" is in direct conflict with the overzealous application of
this rule, which might delay the prompt resolution of cases.

According to the 222nd Law Commission Report, every effort was taken to avoid using
regulations like Order VI Rule 17.19

Rarely are the opposing parties compensated for the time spent revising pleadings. Since it is
virtually always used to make needless modifications, this needs to be reexamined. Even
though the petitioner would have been eligible, Indian Civil Courts have rejected to entertain
applications for amendment in specific situations like these.

Frivolous efforts to change their pleas just add to the strain as India struggles with a growing
backlog of litigation. Approximately 80% of petitions for amendment of pleadings are seen to
be frivolous attempts to stall the legal process.

Along with the problem of continuing lawsuits and delayed justice, Order VI Rule is also
responsible for acting as a weapon to violate the rights of opposing parties since it may be
difficult to determine the subject of contention and, in certain circumstances, even the
malicious intent to change.

Although “it is recommended that courts adopt a lax approach when granting leave to amend
pleadings under Order VI Rule 17, it is noted that this causes grave injustice to the rights of
these parties when one party is permitted to amend his pleading and the other party is
prohibited from responding to the former's altered pleading.”

Limitation Law

The date of application for seeking a change of pleading is crucial in litigation, even if the
phrase states "at any point of the proceedings."
19
Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, The 222nd Law Commission Report on Need for Justice-dispensation through
ADR (2009).
Charan Das v. Amir Khan, a precedent-setting case, shows that, even while a pleading may
need to be amended to clarify the real issue at issue, the statute of limitations may sometimes
serve as a strong justification for withholding it.20

Additionally, it was noted in South Konkan Distilleries & Anr v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik
& Ors21 at paragraph 11 that "It is also widely recognised that there is no absolute rule that
modification should not be authorised in every instance where a remedy is forbidden owing
to limitation." The option for the court to approve a change is always open if it thinks doing
so will really advance the cause of justice and prevent further litigation.

When may a revised or rejected plaint or written statement be made? According to the
Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others v. Kiran Appaso
Swami22 and Others, "A request for modification of the plaint and a petition for revision of
the written statement stand on independent footings." Regarding amendments to the plaint,
the basic rule that pleadings cannot be changed in a manner that materially alters or replaces
the basis for the action or the substance of the claim applies. There is nothing comparable in
the rules regulating written statement amendment. Thus, adding a new foundation for
defence, changing a defence, or admitting contradictory arguments in the written statement is
not problematic; nevertheless, adding, changing, or substituting a new cause of action in the
plaint is problematic. In contrast to a plaint, the courts are more flexible when allowing
changes to written statements since bias is a far less concern in the former.

The Court's jurisdiction is lost if the amendment is adopted. It shouldn't be disregarded since
the proposed adjustment simply strips the court of its financial power. All that the Court can
do is grant the amendment, order the plaintiff to include it in the plaint, correct or modify the
court fee and valuation para of the plaint, and then, if the suit value exceeds its pecuniary
limits, return the plaint to be presented at the appropriate Court in Koka Venkata Ramanaiah
Naidu vs. Karnam Venkata Ratnam.23

CONCLUSION

Any “legal action begins with the filing of a pleading, which the parties should do carefully.
If the facts of the case change, the party must file a motion with the court to modify the
20
Charan Das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50.
21
South Konkan Distilleries & Anr v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors, (2008) 14 SCC 632.
22
Usha Balashaheb Swami and Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.
23
Koka Venkata Ramanaiah Naidu vs. Karnam Venkata Ratnam – 2010 (6) ALT 133.
pleadings. The Court usually grants a motion to amend the pleadings, but it must keep in
mind that doing so has no effect on the case's basic content.

Before the case can be heard, a motion to amend a pleading must be granted in court. The
court may grant such an application in order to avoid a flood of litigation. Simultaneously,
the court determines that allowing the opposing party's motion to amend these pleadings
would not be detrimental. If this occurs, the court may deny his request to amend his
pleadings.”

Overall, “it is agreed that Order VI Rule 17 aids in ensuring justice, reducing the amount of
litigation and its associated costs, and avoiding a large number of claims. The scope of this
clause demonstrates that in civil proceedings, regulations are secondary to justice, and thus
courts have been generous in ordering pleading revisions.

Case law has developed a set of criteria for granting or rejecting leave. It is widely
acknowledged that one of the major issues in the Indian legal system is the speed with which
justice is delivered, and that changing pleadings is a major contributor. Although the right to
modify pleadings is not one that can be exercised at any time or under any circumstances,
courts should not dismiss such requests without a thorough examination.”

When the “opposing party is entitled to reimbursement for expenses and delays, the court
should be more lenient. A legislative clarification addressing whether a civil court may
approve a change to a plaint when such amendment renders that court unable to try the claim
is required, according to the 27th Law Commission Report, which has yet to be adopted.

This needs to be addressed by ensuring that Civil Courts only accept amendments to
pleadings submitted for a good reason, as it provides a useful method for reducing pleading
errors.24”

24
J L Kaput, The 27th Law Commission Report on The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 28 (1964).