CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to

judiciary

A PROJECT ON
“AMENDMENT TO PLEADINGS AND THEAPPROACH TO JUDICIARY”

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr VIVEK KUMAR
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE-I

SUBMITTED BY

YASHI
ENROLLMENT NO. 20FLICDDN02149

SUBMISSION DATE: 4 November 2023

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT –Yashi

SIGNATURE OF FACULTY-

ICFAI LAWSCHOOL,
THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY,DEHRADUN

1
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the writing of this
project.
My deepest thanks to my CPC Professor, Dr VIVEK KUMAR SIR, the guide of the project for guiding
me and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care. he has taken pain to go through the
project and make necessary corrections as and when needed.
I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would have been a
distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well-wishers.

YASHI
ID- 20FLICDDN02149

2
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Govt. Government

HC High Court

Hon‟ble Honorable

P. Page Number

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

v. Versus

anr Another

Edn. Edition

ER England Reporter

Etc. Et Citra.

Ltd Limited

KB Kings Bench

Para Paragraph

3
CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION

2. CHAPTER- 1
 Pleadings
 Object
 Nature & scope

3. CHAPTER- 2
 Amendment of pleadings
 Interpretation of rule
 Object of rule -17
 Stages where pleading can be amended

4. CHAPTER- 3
 Leave to amend when granted
 Leave to amend when refused

5. CHAPTER-5
 Principles
 Doctrine of Relation back
 Effect of 2002 amendment
 Recent cases

6. PERSONAL ANALYSIS

7. CONCLUSION

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

4
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Aims and Objectives:
The aim of the project is to study the “Amendment to pleadings and its approach to judiciary” as
provided in order 6 Rule 17 & 18 of civil procedure code. The objective is to provide detailed
analysis of each important aspect of the with amendments of pleadings

Scope and Limitations:

The scope of the paper is confined to the discussion of the concept, the relevant statutes, and case-
law. The main limitation of the paper is that the researcher has only focused on the doctrine
exclusively and its requirements and effects.

Research questions
The researcher has explored the following questions in the course of this paper -
Q. What is the meaning of the Pleading?
Q. What are the various laws related to amendment of pleadings?
Q. What are the essentials and applicability of amendments o pleadings?

Chapterisation
The researcher has divided the research paper into sections.
 The first section deals with the introduction.
 The second section deals with the provisions for pleadings.
 The third section studies the landmark judgements.

Sources of data
The researcher has relied on both primary and secondary sources of data. Primary sources include
the bare texts of various cases and secondary sources include books, magazines, journals and web
resources.
Mode of writing
The mode of writing is descriptive and analytical.
Mode of citation -A uniform mode of citation has been followed

5
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

“Procedural law1 provides machinery for enforcement of rights created by substantive law.
Procedural law is thus an adjunct or accessory to substantive law2”

INTRODUCTION
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the provisions through which the amendments to
pleadings can be introduced during the trial process. Since the bygone era, the belief of almost all
the legal systems was that the courts must have unrestricted and unguided power to amend the
pleadings so as to further the cause of justice without causing an iota of injustice to the adversary
party. Rule 17 of Order VI provides for the powers to the courts in India to allow the amendments.
Adding to this, the Privy Council, the Supreme Court and other Courts in India have been
implementing this practice since the ages. In 1990s, a lot of concerns were raised as to the extent
of usage of this facility in almost all the cases litigated till then.
By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision relating to amendment of
pleadings was deleted. Justice Malimath Committee recommended that the rule 17 of this order be
deleted to avoid delay and to ensure speedy disposal of cases. This amendment act received the
assent of the President but was not brought into force. However, it was reintroduced by the Code
of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso and was brought into effect from
July 1, 2002
Order 6 deals with pleadings in general rule
RULE-1 Defines, pleadings

Rule-2 The fundamental principle of pleadings.

Rule-3-13 the parties to supply necessary

particulars

Rule-14-15 signing and verification of pleadings

Rule-16 Empowers a court to strike out

unnecessary pleadings

Rule-17-18 provision relating to amendment of

pleadings

1
Deals with the enforcement of law that is guided and regulated by the practice, procedure and machinery
2
Law that defines and determine the rights and obligation of the citizen to be protected by law

6
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

CHAPTER 1
PLEADING: DEFINITION-
Pleading are statements in writing drawn up and filed by each party to a case, stating what his
contentions will be at the trial and giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order
to prepare his case in answer.
Order VI deals with pleadings in general. Rule 1 of that Order defines pleadings as a plaint or
written statement. Plaint is used to notify the opposite party of the case that is filed against him or
her. Framing of pleadings is the most fundamental and must be dealt with a lot of caution. The
reason is that, once the pleadings are framed, no one has the power to amend them expect for the
judge on his discretion.
In the absence of the pleadings, if any evidence is produced by the parties, that cannot be
considered. It is a settled law that no party must be allowed to venture beyond the pleadings. There
is a lot of litigation in this area as to the scope and extent of the liberty to amend the pleadings. In
the Common law, the pleading practice was a mechanical and rigid exercise such that misspellings
of minor details were not allowed.
OBJECT
 The primary object of the rule is that the Courts should try the case based on the merits and
should subsequently allow the amendments which are must for assessing the real
controversy between the parties. This ensures that the injustice is not caused to the either
side based on minute omissions by the parties.
 The object and purpose of the pleadings is to make the opposite party acquaint with the
case he has to face in the due course of time.
 The whole object of the pleadings is to bring parties to the definite issues, reduce costs and
to ensure the speedy delivery of justice.
This also results in the conduct of the fair and flawless trial and the pleadings must contain all the
essential material facts so that the adversary party is not taken away by surprise. The parties are
normally expected to confine to the pleadings.
IN THE LEADING CASE OF- THROP V/S HOLDSWORTH3
The whole object of pleading is to bring parties to an issue, and the meaning of the rules (relating
to pleadings) was to prevent the issue bring enlarged, which would prevent either party from
knowing when the cause came on for trial. The whole meaning of the system is to narrow the
parties to definite issues, and to diminish expense and delay, especially as regards the amount of
testimony required on either side at the hearing

3
1876

7
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

CASE- VIRENDRA KASHINATH V/S VINAYAK N. JOSHI4

The supreme court stated, that the object of the rule is twofold. First is to afford the other side
intimation regarding the particular facts of his case so that they may be met by the other side.
Second is to enable the court to determine what is really the issue of parties.

NATURE AND SCOPE-

Order I, Rule 10, empowers the court to add or remove parties to the proceedings. The courts have
right to add or subtract parties may be exercised at the request of Suo moto or the parties.
The circumstances under which amendments to a complaint should or should not be permitted
cannot be determined by the court in the official straitjacket. Must be decided on a case-by-case
basis. However, this rule applies to other procedures such as enforcement proceedings, arbitration
proceedings, and applications under the Special Marriage Act5.

CHAPTER-2

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS:
RULES 17-18
As already discussed in RULE 2- material facts and necessary particulars must be stated in the
pleadings and the decision cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings. But many times,
the party may find it necessary to amend his pleading before or during the trial of the case.
The court may allow any party to amend or add to its complaint at any stage of the proceedings in
an appropriate manner and under reasonable conditions, clarifying the actual dispute between the
parties. The necessary corrections shall be made for this.
Code of Civil Procedure Order VI, Rule 17, provides for "brief amendments." The provision states
that at any time the court considers it fair, it may allow the parties to change the procedure. All of
these changes necessary to determine the actual issue in question between the parties are made by
the court. The CPC (Amendment) Act of 1999, which aims to limit the court's ability to amend a
complaint, adds a reservation to this provision.
When the proceedings are filed, despite the due diligence of the parties, the court states that it will
not approve the request for amendment unless the court determines that the parties were unable to
raise the matter prior to the proceedings.

4
1999
5
Special marriage act 1954

8
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

INTERPRETTION OF THE RULE-

 First, the provisions and special provisions of the order may be construed at any time in its
discretion to allow any party in question to amend, delete or add to the pleading. The court
may or may not allow the parties to amend the pleading. In addition, the court has the
power to decide on a case-by-case basis how and under what conditions the parties may
change them. Therefore, it can be said that the amendment of the complaint is at the
discretion of the court, not the rights of the parties.
 Secondly, the other part of the Rule 17 of Order VI does not give discretion to the court
but it is mandatory. It orders the court to allow only all such applications for the amendment
of pleadings, which are necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between
the parties. It is to be noted that the rule allows the court to exercise its discretion before
the commencement of trial.
 Lastly, the proviso to the rule states that the court shall not grant permission to any
application for the amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial. The second
part of the provision states that an application for amendment can be allowed even after
the commencement of trail if the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

OBJECT OF RULE 17 ORDER 6-

The object of the rule is that the courts should

try the merits of the cases that come before The absence of any fact which is material
them and should consequently allow all to the issue and the chances of the same
amendments that may be necessary for causing prejudice to any party to the
determining the real question in controversy controversy would render the delivery of
between the parties provided it does not cause justice incomplete.
injustice or prejudice to the other side

OBJECT OF RULE 17
ORDER 6

Powers of amendment must be enjoyed

While deciding an application for
and liberally exercised by the courts and
amendments of pleading, the court should
it has added a caveat that an amendment
not refuse bonafide, legitimate, honest
cannot be made to substitute one cause of
and necessary amendments.
action for another

9
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

STAGES WHERE PLEADINGS CAN BE AMENDED

1. The provisions regarding 6. But later, it was restored by the

amendment of a complaint Civil Procedure (Amendment)
empower the civil court to Code, This amendment has given
allow the parties to modify, power to the court to allow
add or amend the pleading at application of the pleadings with
any stage of the proceedings. some limitation.

2. Provision for Amendment of pleadings has been

stated in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of civil
5. This provision was deleted by the Civil
procedure. But the court will allow amendment
Procedure (Amendment) Code, 1999. This
only if this amendment is necessary to determine
omission was made to ensure consistency in new
the controversy between the parties. The purpose
changes in the civil code.
of this provision is to promote ends of justice and
not to defeat the law.

3. The Proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 4. This proviso gives

states that court will not allow discretionary power to the court to
application of amendment after decide on the application of
the trial has been commenced pleadings after the
unless court comes to the commencement of the Trial. An
conclusion that party did not raise institution of the suit is necessary
the relevant facts before the for applying for amendment of
commencement of the trial. pleadings.

WHY COURT ALLOWS AMENDMENT-

1. The main objective for the court is to allow application for Amendment of Pleadings is to secure
the ends of the justice and prevent injustice to other parties.
2. This amendment is required for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties.
3. Amendments of pleadings help the parties to correct its mistakes in the pleadings. In the case of
Cropper v. Smith, the court stated that the object behind amendment of pleadings is to protect the
rights of the parties and not to punish them for the mistake made by them in the pleadings.

10
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

CHAPTER-3
LEAVE TO AMEND WHEN GRANTED
The rule confers a very wide discretion on courts in the matter of amendment of pleadings. As a
general rule, leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real question in issue between the
parties to be raised in pleadings, where the amendment will occasion no injury to the opposite
party and can be sufficiently compensated for by costs or other terms to be imposed by the order.
IN CASE- KISANDAS V/SRACHAPPA VITHOBA6
All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions-
a) Of not working injustice to the other side
b) Of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between
the parties.

 IN CASE SURAJ PRAKASH V/S RAJ RANI7-

Supreme court held that the liberal principles should guide the court in the exercise of
discretion in allowing amendment. It said that the multiplicity of proceedings should be
avoided and the amendments which might change the character of the case must not be
allowed. It also added a caveat that the subject matter of the suit must not be changed by
that.
Though the courts were granted unfettered discretion is to decide whether to grant the amendment
or not, but it is subjected to misuse. The classic rule is, the wider the discretion, the greater the
misuse. This power of the courts must be exercised properly, reasonably and non-arbitrarily.
Therefore, the main points to be considered before a party is allowed to amend his pleading are:
firstly, whether the amendment is necessary for determination of the real question in controversy;
and secondly, can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side.
Thus, it has been held that where amendment is sought to avoid multiplicity of suits, or where the
parties in the plaint are wrongly described, or where some properties are omitted from the plaint
by inadvertence, the amendment should be allowed.
LEAVE TO AMEND WHEN REFUSED
It is true that courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings. But the
wider the discretion, the greater is the possibility of its abuse. Ultimately, it is a legal power and
no legal power can be exercised improperly, unreasonably or arbitrarily.

6
ILR 1909
7
AIR 1981 SC 485.

11
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

 IN GANGA BAI V/S VIJAY KUMAR8

The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be
appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But
the exercised of such far- reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial
considerations, and wider the discretion greater ought to be the care and circumspection on
the part of the court.
In the following cases, leave to amend will be refused by the court-
1. Leave to amend will be refused where the amendment is not necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
The real controversy- test is the basic test and it is the primary duty of the court to decide
whether such amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it
is the amendment will be allowed. If it is not the amendment will be refused
2. Leave to amend will be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent
case or changes the fundamental character of the suit or defense

 Case- Steward v/s North Metropolitan Tramways Co9.

 The plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the tramway company for damages
caused by the negligence of the company in allowing the tramway to be in defective
condition.
 The company denied the allegation of negligence. Company was not the proper
party to be sued
 OBSERVATION- We cannot countenance the notion that a plaintiff coming into
court with one case, and hopelessly failing to prove it should be permitted to
succeed upon another
3. Leave to amend will be refused where the effect of the proposed amendment is to take
away from the other side a legal right accrued in his favor-
 As a general rule, every amendment should be allowed if it can be made without
prejudice or injustice to the other side
 In case of lapse of time- in absence of special circumstances such an amendment
should not be allowed by the court
4. Leave to amend will be refused where the application for amendment is not made in good
faith.10
 As a general rule, leave to amend ought not to be granted if the applicant has acted
malafide11

8
(1974) 2 SCC 393
9
1886 LR 16 QBD 178 (CA)
10
Pirgonda patil v kalgonda patil, AIR 1957 SC 363
11
Ganga bai v Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 scc

12
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

 In Patasibai v. Ratanlal, it was observed that there was no ground to allow the
application for amendment of the plaint which apart from being highly belated, was
clearly an afterthought fur the obvious purpose of averting the inevitable
consequence of rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any
cause of action or raise any triable issue

CHAPTER- 4
THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND IN DEALING WITH
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS OF PLEADINGS

1. All amendments should be allowed which are necessary for dtermination of the real controversies
in the suit.

The proposed amenments should not alter and be substitue for the cause of action on the basis o
which the original lis was raised

Proposed amendments should not cuse prejudice to the other sidewhich cannot be compensated by
the other side

Amendment of a claim or relief barred by time should not be allowed

no parties suffer on account of technicalities of law and the amendment should be allowed to
minimise the litigation between the parties

the delay in filing petitonsn for amendments of pleadings should be properly compensated

Error or mistake which if not fraudulent shoild be made a ground for rejecting the appliucation for
amendments pleadings

the above principles are illustrative and not exhaustive

DOCTRINE OF RELATION BACK

An amendment relates back to the pleading, but the doctrine is not absolute, unqualified or of
universal application. If an amendment is incorporated in a pleading, the Court has the power to
direct in appropriate cases that such particular amendment does not relate back to the date of the
institution of the suit in the interest of justice.

13
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

This was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakanu12. The
Supreme Court made it mandatory that the party seeking to amend the pleading should mention in
the application specifically as to what is to be altered or substituted in the original pleadings[xxiv].
After a close scrutiny by Court, the Court can in its discretion relate it to the original one.
The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmidas vs. Nanabai13 explained the law on the amendment
of the pleadings. It said that the court can refuse to entertain the application for amendment if it
feels that its restraints the other party‟s legal rights which are accrued to him by lapse of time. But
it said that this rule could be applied only when fresh allegations are added by the process of
amendments and not in the cases where amendments are sought to clarify an existing pleading
where it does not add or subtract any substantial material relevant to the proceeding. Hence, the
law before the 1999 amendment was that the court has unlimited power of allowing the
amendments to be made in the cases where it merely clarifies the original pleading

EFFECT OF 2002 AMENDMENT-

 On the recommendation of the law commission, the CPC was amended in 2002, limiting
the power of courts in granting the amendments after the commencement of the trial. With
the intention of shortening the litigation and for the speedy disposal of the cases, order 17
was omitted by the 1999 amendment.
 The legislators felt that this rule was in the statute book since ages and there is no single
case where this rule was not used.
 The provision was restored back in 2002 in view of the protests, agitations and strikes all
over the country, but with a caveat in the form of the proviso.
 The new proviso provides that no application for amendment must be processed by the
court after the commencement of the trial, unless the courts come to the conclusion that in
spite of the due-diligence of the parties, they could not have raised before the
commencement.
 But, the issue of deciding whether the parties in spite of due diligence could have raised
the prayer or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. This amendment is
trying to limit the powers of the court to some extent, nonetheless, the courts have
unfettered powers in the cases of the unforeseen situations.
 This provision has been already subjected to the judicial scrutiny by the courts in India.
 The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of E. Prasad Goud vs. B. Lakshmana
Goud14 held that the proviso is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertainment of any later
application if the court finds that a party in spite of due diligence could not raise the plea.
 The Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs.
Union of India15 upheld the validity of the provision and said that its object is to prevent
frivolous applications filed to delay the process of trial.
12
AIR 2002 SC 3369.
13
AIR 1964 SC 18
14
AIR 1964 SC 18.
15
AIR 2005 SC 3353.

14
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

 The Supreme Court in Baldev Singh case16- held that the term “commencement of the
trial” must be used in limited sense as meaning final hearing of the suit, examination of the
witnesses, filing of the documents and addressing the documents.
 The court also placated the defendant by saying that “in the interest of the defendant, the
new reliefs sought for are considered by the court to be deemed to be made on the date on
which the application seeking amendment was filed

RECENT CASES RELATED TO – AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

1. A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for

amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement17
Kerala High Court: V.G. Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement
where it seeks to change former admissions. The Bench stated,
“Even the most liberal approach towards amendment of written statements will not justify
the approval of such an application.”
2. Amendment can be allowed provided it does not prejudice the rights of the
respondents to take up the grounds on waiver and acquiescence at the time of final
hearing; HC reiterates18
Sikkim High Court: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., while allowing the application made for the
amendment of pleadings, held “The proposed amendment, in my considered opinion, in no
manner causes any prejudice to the answering Respondent neither does it change the nature
and character of the Petition or the reliefs sought.”
3. Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC19
Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial
court whereby it had rejected the petitioner-defendant‟s application under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC (amendment of pleadings) seeking amendment in their written statement
4. Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have
been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights20
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. contemplated a petition filed
under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order passed by

16
AIR 2007 SC 2832.
17
Muhammed Ashraf v. Fasalu Rahman, OP(C) No. 1374 of 2021, decided on 10-09-2021
18
Santosh Dong v. State of Sikkim, decided on 10-12-2020]
19
Naresh Kumar v. Meer Singh, 2020 SCC decided on 28-01-2020
20
Kishori Lal v. Darshan Kumar, 2019 SCC decided on 30-08-2019]

15
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

Civil Judge of dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 7 i.e., for „Amendment of
Pleadings‟ read with Section 151 of CPC.

PERSONAL ANALYSIS-
While the courts will not allow parties to amend their pleadings as a right, neither will they reject
applications for amendment arbitrarily. We are of the opinion that in view of the long delay which
has been noted in submitting the application for amendment, the nature and extent of the requested
amendments which in essence redefine the issues in dispute, the fact that the case is pending for
more than ten years, the real danger of irreparable damage, the negative impact on the respondents'
rights, including the danger to breach of the Constitution due to the additional delay that will be
caused and the necessity to call and recall witnesses, we hereby decide that the first instance Court
has correctly exercised its discretion and did not grant leave for amendment
The opponents' rights cannot be put in danger neither can the case sustain any further
inconvenience at such a late stage with obvious dangers of deviation because the plaintiff has
negligently, as it appears from its own allegation, failed to ask for the requested amendment
earlier although it has the opportunity to have done so."
The courts will exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis, carefully considering the
guidelines outlined above in order to strike the appropriate balance between the parties in a way
that will best serve in the interest of justice.

CONCLUSION
The law of amendment of pleadings is settled by the Supreme Court. The Courts started with the
rule of law that there must not be any restriction on the powers of the courts be it law of limitation
or after the commencement of the proceeding, for securing the ends of justice and to minimize the
harm caused to the opposite party.
The Courts have been very active in this area developing the law time and again to suit to the
various time frames. However, the legislators themselves thought that discretion should be granted
to the courts whether to allow the amendment or not to decide the matter in issue. The courts
themselves since 1908 have started crystallizing the law through guidelines which must be
followed while allowing the amendments.
They have laid down the principles in which the leave to amendment should be granted and the
cases in which it should not be. However, the Supreme Court has been cautious and vigilant in
carefully designing the guidelines to be followed by the lower courts. Gradually, as a lot of
discretion is vested on the courts, there is a possibility of misuse. There was a Law Commission
Report stating that this provision of the amendment was used on a large scale and hence it needs
to be restricted.

16
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

In 1999, efforts were made to eliminate this provision but could not be brought into force. Due to
a lot of protests from the legal practitioners, this was restored back in the 2002 CPC Amendment.
But now a small caveat was adduced to the proviso with a view to limit the unrestrained power of
the courts in allowing or refusing the amendments.
This was that the court shall allow the amendments to the pleadings only if it feels that the parties
could not have raised before in spite of their due diligence. By the literal reading of the provision,
it appears that that the power of the Courts is restricted. But, a simple glance at the judgments
pronounced since 2002 discussed in the above sections shows that the Courts continued to exercise
the unbridled power even after the amendment for securing the ends of justice. This is bold judicial
activism that has reached great heights and did not erode the faith entrusted by the citizens in the
judiciary.
In view of the above discussion and interpretation of the provision through various judgments, it
can be said that the law in relation to amendment of pleadings has been exercised by the courts
in order to secure the ends of justice and to deliver equitable justice. The same has been also
exercised by the courts keeping in mind that the same is not available to the litigant as a vested
right but is given at the discretion of the court which should be exercised with due care and
caution. The courts also have to been observing the principles, which have been laid down under
various judgments by the apex court.

17
 CPC-I ASSIGNMENT Amendment to pleadings and its approach to
judiciary

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFERRED-
 CPC BY C K TAKWANI
 BARE ACT

WEBSITES-
 Manupatra.com
 Legalserviceindia.com
 Indiankanoon.org

REFERENCES-
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-amendment-pleadings-india/
 https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/scope-and-extent-of-amendment-of-
pleadings/#_edn27
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1427/Amendment-to-Pleadings-and-the-
approach-of-the-Judiciary.html


18