Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that amendment of pleadings at the appellate stage cannot be allowed without strong justification for delay or compliance with earlier permitted amendments during trial. 

• The Jharkhand High Court held this in the matter of Prabodh Kumar Tiwary v. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Prabodh Kumar Tiwary v. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• This matter arose from a partition suit filed in 1997, where the petitioner sought division of ancestral property among family members. 
• Prabodh Kumar Tiwary filed Title (Partition) Suit No. 497 of 1997 seeking a decree for partition and allotment of his rightful shares in ancestral property listed in Schedule-A (entire share) and Schedule-B and C (half share each). 
• During the trial proceedings, the petitioner filed an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 171 of 2024. 
• The trial court allowed the amendment petition vide order dated 19.04.2024. This amendment (Amendment No. VII) specifically sought to incorporate the name of Kunti Devi, described as the first wife of Sahdeo Tiwary and the biological mother of the petitioner, into the genealogical table of the family. 
• Despite the trial court's permission, the petitioner inadvertently failed to carry out the allowed amendment in the plaint. The amendment was not formally incorporated into the pleading documents. 
• The suit proceeded to trial and was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment dated 26th April 2024 and decree dated 09.05.2025, without the amendment being reflected in the final documents. 
• The defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2024 challenging the trial court's decree. 
• During the appellate proceedings, it came to light that Amendment No. VII, though allowed by the trial court, had not been incorporated into the plaint. 
• The petitioner then filed a fresh application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Rule 18 CPC before the first appellate court (District Judge-III, Deoghar) to formally carry out the previously allowed amendment. 
• The copy of the amendment served to the defendants contained the amendment in handwritten form, while the rest of the petition was typed. 
• The amendment was incorrectly numbered as VII when it should have been numbered as VIII. 
• The petitioner provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in implementing the amendment or why it was being sought only at the appellate stage. 
• The petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the appellate court's order rejecting the amendment application. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers a discretionary power to permit amendments at any stage of the proceedings, but such permission depends on the applicant clearly stating what is to be omitted, altered, substituted, or added to the pleadings. 
• It observed that when an amendment is sought at the appellate stage after conclusion of trial, the party must offer strong, valid reasons for not seeking it before the trial court. 
• The Court reiterated that no amendment can be allowed if it prejudices the rights of the opposite party or deprives them of a vested benefit accrued through the trial court’s judgment. 
• It further held that an amendment wiping out pleadings or admissions already considered by the trial court to introduce an entirely new case at appeal would cause serious prejudice and cannot be permitted. 
• In the present matter, although the trial court had allowed Amendment No. VII, the petitioner failed to implement it in the plaint; the petition was typed while the amendment portion was handwritten, showing lack of proper compliance. 
• The Court stressed that due diligence is a mandatory requirement before seeking relief, and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate such diligence. 
  It also noted that the petitioner offered no reasonable explanation for the delay or omission, despite having had the opportunity during trial to incorporate the change. 
• The Court concluded there was no error in the appellate court’s rejection of the belated amendment application and dismissed the petition. 

What is Order VI of CPC? 

• Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with pleadings in civil cases. Pleadings refer to the plaint filed by the plaintiff and the written statement filed by the defendant in response to the plaint. 
• Pleadings are written statements that each party files to inform the court and the opposite party about their case and the facts they intend to prove during trial. These documents must contain all material facts and necessary details so that each side knows what case they need to answer. 
• It is a fundamental requirement that all material facts and necessary particulars must be clearly stated in the pleadings, and courts cannot decide cases based on facts or grounds that are not mentioned in the pleadings. 

What is Rule 17 of Order VI? 

• Rule 17 of Order VI deals specifically with the amendment or alteration of pleadings after they have been filed in court. 
• This rule grants discretionary power to the court to allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided such amendment is just and necessary for determining the real issues in dispute between the parties. 
• The court may permit amendments to pleadings in such manner and on such terms as it considers fair, ensuring that all necessary amendments are made to resolve the actual questions of controversy between the parties. 
• However, there is an important restriction that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court is satisfied that despite exercising due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began. 
• Due diligence means that the party must show they made reasonable efforts and conducted proper investigation but still could not have discovered or raised the matter earlier through no fault of their own. 
• The primary objective of Rule 17 is to reduce litigation, minimize delays in court proceedings, and prevent the need for multiple separate lawsuits by allowing parties to properly present their complete case in one proceeding. 
• This rule balances the need for finality in legal proceedings with the principle that justice should be done based on complete facts and real issues between the parties.