J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
8. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of
1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22
of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for
amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless
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. The above proviso, to some extent,
curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At
present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has
9 2010 (6) ALT 109
10 2013 (1) ALD (SC)
12
to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been
sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the
merits of the case that come before them and should,
consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for
determining the real question in controversy between the parties
provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to
allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of
the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of
allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea
that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is
to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of
each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this
Court in J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others,
(2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala
Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337. Keeping the
above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants
have made out a case for amendment.