CPC | Order VI Rule 17 Obligates Litigant To Make All Amendments Necessary For Determining Real Questions In Controversy

Case: Mr. Vijay Gupta V. Mr. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.

Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar

Case No.: CM (M) 1030/2021

Court Observation: “It casts an obligation and a duty to carry out, necessarily, all such amendments as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In this context, the use of the word “made”, instead of “allowed” is also significant. Order VI Rule 17 does not say that “all such amendments shall be allowed”. It states that “all such amendments shall be made”. To my mind, the use of the word “made” is significant and purposeful. Amendments are allowed by the Court, but they are made by the litigant applying for the amendment. The use of the expression “shall be made”, instead of “shall be allowed”, therefore, indicates that the duty that is cast, by Order VI Rule 17, is cast on the litigant, rather than on the Court.”

“It merely identifies one situation in which the amendment is necessary for determining the real issues in controversy between the parties as one circumstance in which the amendment is mandatorily required to be allowed. The circumstances in which a prayer for amendment of pleadings may justifiably be refused are not, therefore, set out in Order VI Rule 17.”

“It is well settled that the CPC, as a procedural statute, cannot be so interpreted as to defeat substantive rights. If, indeed, the undertaking dated 11th May, 2001 (assuming it to be genuine and reliable), in fact, grants the petitioner right of user of the rear parking space, the petitioner cannot be disentitled from enforcing this right merely because, at the time of drafting and filing of the plaint, the case set up was of ownership. It is always open to the respondents to oppose the petitioner’s claim, on facts as well as in law. Trail has not yet commenced, as affidavit in evidence has yet to be filed by the petitioner.”

Previous Posts

Kerala Wetland Act | Ignorance Of Law & Its Development Through Judgments Main Reason For Accumulation Of Cases: High Court

Presumption Of Innocence U/S 3(i) Juvenile Justice Act Not Applicable To Adult Co-Accused: J&K&L High Court

Kerala High Court Directs Union Ministry To Pass Expedite Orders On Officers’ Deliberate Dereliction Of Duty Under Emblems & Names Act

Lady Justice Is Blindfolded Only To Be Non-Partisan, Not To Be Blind To Mischief Or Fraud Played Out By Dishonest Litigants: Delhi High Court

Anti-Corruption Branch Of Delhi Govt Can Investigate Corruption Allegations Against Delhi Police Officials: High Court

Cancellation Of Bail Cannot Be Limited To The Occurrence Of Supervening Circumstances: Supreme Court

No Interference U/A 227 Unless Lower Court Committed Manifest Error Or Decision Is Against Settled Principles Of Law: Kerala High Court

Section 313 CrPC Examination Not A Mere Procedural Formality; Trial Court Has To Question Accused Fairly With Care And Caution: Supreme Court Download Judgement