In addition to responding to my concerns raised therein, could you look into the position of India,

the UK, Australia, and South Africa regarding the amendment of pleadings? Your research
should focus on the relevant issues I have highlighted in my draft, rather than collecting general
information on the subject of amendment of pleadings.

Civil Procedure Code Act No. 20 of 1977

Chapter XV – of amendment
Section 93. Amendment of pleadings:
(1977)
At any hearing of the action, or any time in the presence of, or after reasonable notice to, all the
parties to the action before final judgement, the court shall have full power of amending in its
discretion, and upon such terms as to the costs and postponement of day for filing answer or
replication or for hearing of cause, or otherwise, as it may think fit, all pleadings and process in
the action, by way of addition, or of alteration, or of omission. And the amendments or additions
shall be clearly written on the face of the pleading or process affected by the order; or if this
cannot conveniently be done, a fair draft of the document as altered shall be appended to the
document intended to be amended, and every such amendment or alteration shall be instilled by
the Judge.

Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, No. 79 of 1988

Section 93
(1) The court may, in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded, at any
hearing of the action, or at any time in the presence of, or after reasonable notice to all the
parties to the action, before final judgement, amend all pleadings and process in the
action by way of addition, or of alteration or of omission.

(2) Every order for amendment made under this section shall be upon such terms as to costs
and postponement of the date fixed for the filing of answer, or replication, or for the
hearing of the case or otherwise, as the Court may think fit.

(3) The amendments or additions made in pursuance of an order under this section shall be
clearly written on the pleadings or processes affected by the order; or if cannot be
conveniently so done, a fair draft of the document as altered shall be appended to the
document intended to be amended, and every such amendment or alteration shall be
initialed by the judge.
Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, No. 9 of 1991

Section 93
(1) Upon the application made to it before the day first fixed for trial of the action, in the
presence of, or after reasonable notice to all parties to the action, the Court shall have full
power of amending in its discretion, all pleadings in the action, by way of addition, or
alteration, or of omission.
(2) On or after the first day fixed for the trial of the action and before final judgement, no
application for the amendment of any pleadings shall be allowed unless the court is
satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by the court, that grave and irremediable injustice
will be caused if such amendment is not permitted, and on no other ground, and that party
so applying has not been guilty of laches.
(3) Any application for the amendment of pleadings which may be allowed by a Court under
subsection 1 or 2 shall be upon such terms as to costs and postponements or otherwise as
the court may think fit.
(4) The additions or alterations or omissions shall be clearly made on the face of the pleading
as altered shall be appended in the record of the action tp the pleading amended. Every
such addition or alteration or omission shall be signed by the judge.

Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act No. 8 of 2017

8.
(1) by the substitution, in subsection (1) thereof, for the words “first fixed for trial” of the words
“first fixed for pre-Trial”; and
(2) by the substitution of subsection (2) thereof, for the words “first fixed for the trial” of the
words “first fixed for the pre-Trial”.

Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act No. 29 of 2023

9.
(1) by the substitution, in section (1) thereof, for the words “first fixed for pre-Trial of the
action” of the words “first fixed for pre-Trial conference, of the action”.
‘Justice’ in civil litigation has traditionally meant justice as between the parties. However,
pressure on public resources and delay resulting from traditional civil procedures has precipitated
reform that now requires judges to case manage proceedings. ‘Justice’ has been broadened by
such reform to include taking into account cost, delay and prejudice to other users of the civil
litigation system as a central consideration when determining whether to grant leave to amend.
The High Court in Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd appeared to maintain the traditional
narrow concept of ‘justice’. Recently, however, the High Court appears to have, in part, resiled
from that view when considering court rules concerning amendment.
This article examines the High Court's interpretation of the court rules for amendment at issue in
Aon Risk Services, the impact of that reasoning on the scope of J L Holdings and case
management.

Refined London Limited and Ors -v- Charles Gordon and Ors [2021] EWHC 1915 (Ch)

The distinction of arguments identified as per the case

1. Issue 1 - The first proviso to section 46 of the Civil Procedure Code states: “Provided that
no amendment shall be allowed which would have the effect of converting an action of
one character into an action of another and inconsistent character.” This bar is applicable
irrespective of whether the amendment sought is before or after the pre-trial conference.

2. Issue 2 - In terms of section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, every action shall include
the whole of the claim to which the plaintiff is entitled in respect of the cause of action.
Actions cannot be filed on a piecemeal basis.

3. Issue 3 - The policy of the Civil Procedure Code is to avoid multiplicity of actions.
Therefore, amendments introducing new causes of action arising out of the same
transaction may be allowed, provided they can be accommodated within the framework
of the law. However, amendments that introduce new causes of action and deprive the
other party of the defence of limitation shall not be allowed.

4. Issue 4 - New causes of action arising after the institution of the action, even if they stem
from the same transaction, cannot generally be accommodated. This is because the rights
of the parties are determined at the time of the institution of the action.

5. Issue 5 - When pleadings are amended, they are considered to relate back to the date of
the original plaint or answer.
6. Issue 6 - The general bars set out in various sections in the Civil Procedure Code
regarding pleadings are applicable to the amendment of pleadings.

7. Issue 7 - When the amendment is sought on or after the date the case is first fixed for pre-
trial of the action or pre-trial conference of the action, the discretion of the Court has
been significantly taken away.

8. Issue 8 - It is undisputed that the 1st and 2nd defendants made the application to amend
the pleadings on the day first fixed for the pre-trial of the action. Therefore, section 93(1)
is inapplicable.

9. Issue 9 - As section 93(2) presently stands, the Court shall be satisfied that a grave and
irremediable injustice is inevitable if the amendment is not allowed. However, even if
such grave injustice exists, the Court should not allow the amendment if the party seeking
it is guilty of laches. Both requirements shall be met, not one of them. Section 93(2)
cannot be invoked to rectify defects caused by a party’s own negligence, failure to
exercise due diligence, imprudence or similar conduct

10. Issue 10 - Depending on the unique facts and circumstances of the case, a mistake may be
excused, provided other requirements are met and subject to costs, but not negligence.