Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. It is also well settled that amendment in the pleadings should normally be allowed even a prayer in that regard made at some belated stage in case the same is essential and required for just and effective decision of the pending lis. It .

has also been emphasized that approach of the Court ceased of the matter should be liberal and not technical while considering an application for amendment. The Apex Court in Surender Kumar Sharma versus Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 626 has held that the application for amendment merely belated should not be dismissed if the Court finds that allowing the same would facilitate to resolve the real controversy between the parties. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"5. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and latches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse amendment.
.
6. It is also well settled that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the Court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by cost or otherwise. [See B.K. N. Pillai Vs. P. Pillai and another [AIR 2000 SC 614 at Page 616]. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there was some delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint, such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed.
manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment."

(ii) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v.