Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….01

2. Essentials of pleading…………………………………………………………….02

3. Amendment of Pleadings and its object………………………………………….03

4. Leave to amend when granted……………………………………………………03

5. Leave to amend when refused……………………………………………………04

6. Effect of amendment……………………………………………………………...05

7. Case Study………………………………………………………………………..07

Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors..................07

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India ……………………………...10

8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..16

9. References………………………………………………………………………...17

0

Introduction:

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings.

Pleadings are the case of the Plaintiff or the Defendant in Plaint and Written Statement

respectively. An amendment can be by way of altering something, modifying something,

deleting something.

A plaint or written statement may be drafted by the parties or counsels in a hurried manner.

In doing like this there may be errors. Even if it is prepared with taking time, by oversight some

part may be missed. Also change in some circumstances may require the party to incorporate

some vital details in his pleadings. In all these circumstances, the provision for amendment

comes to the help of parties when his pleadings are already filed in the Court. It can be said that a

party will not lose his chance to plead his good case by way of amendment only because he has

already filed his pleadings.

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his

pleadings1. It shall be for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the

parties. It is the discretion of the Court.

No amendment after commencement of trial. This is the ordinary rule. Anyhow the party

can convince the court that despite due diligence, he could not raise the matter before the trial. In

Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggi Reddy Venkatanarayana Reddy2, the Supreme Court of

India held that if the plaintiff is given permission to lead additional evidence while the suit is still

pending, amendment of written statement should also be permitted. Exceptions noted are:

1 Order6 Rule172 (2001) 8 SCC 115

1

1. it should not be allowed if it is established that the amendment would be unjust and

would result in prejudice against the opposite side as could not be compensated by costs

or would deprive him of right accrued due to lapse of time.

2. the prayer made has become time barred. It is also said that an amendment should not

change the nature of the suit.

If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the

time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen

days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such

limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended

by the Court3.

Essentials of pleading:

In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written

statement filed with a court by parties in a civil action, other than a motion. By stating what

claims and defenses are at issue, pleadings establish the issues to be decided by the court.

O VI, R 1 states that "Pleading", shall mean plaint or written statement. Thus pleadings

constitute of both what is alleged by the plaintiff and the response by the Defendant. A plaint is

the first document that initiates the pleading and thus, a lawsuit. A plaint sets forth the relevant

allegations of fact that give rise to one or more legal causes of action along with a prayer for

relief.

3 Order 6 Rule 18

2

It can be seen that Rule 14 defines pleading; Rule 25 lays down the fundamental principles

of pleading. Rules 3 to 13 require the essential particulars to be supplied by parties. O VI, R6

2states the fundamental rules of pleading. They include that:

(i) Pleadings must state fact, not law,

(ii) Pleadings should state fact and only fact,

(iii) Pleadings should state material fact and not evidence, and

(iv) Pleadings should state facts in a concise form.

Rule 17 of Order VI deals with the provision of amendment of the plaint. It states:

“17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either

party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all

such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real

question in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,

unless the Court conies to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have

raised the matter before the commencement of trial. ”

Amendment of Pleadings and its object:

4 1.Pleading "Pleading", shall mean plaint or written statement.5 2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.(3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words.6 Pleading to state material facts and not evidence— (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. It is an essential requirement of pleading that the material facts and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings. But many a time the party may find it necessary to emend his pleadings before or during the trial of the case.

3

As stated earlier, essential details have to be mentioned in the plaint and unnecessary details

have to be struck out.

In the case of Cropper v. Smith7, Bowen, L.J. remarks:

“I think it is well-established principle that the object of the courts is to decide the rights of

the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by

deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights”

The paramount object behind Amendment is that the courts should try the merits of the

cases 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.8

Ultimately, the courts exist for doing justice between the parties and not for punishing

them, and they are empowered to grant amendments of pleadings in the larger interest of doing

full and complete justice to parties. 9 Provisions for the amendment of pleading are contained to

promote end of justice and not for defeating them.10

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

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.11

In Kisandas v. Vithoba12, Batchelor J. observed as follows:7 (1884) 29 Ch D 7008 Patil v. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 3639 Ram Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869.10 Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91: AIR 1978 SC 48411 Tildersley v. Harper, (1878) 10 Ch D 39312 [1909] I.L.R. 33 Bom. 644

4

“All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working in

justice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real

questions in controversy between the parties”

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 suits13, or where

the parties in the plaint are wrongly described14, or where some properties are omitted from the

plaint by inadvertence15, 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. In Ganga Bai v.

Vijay Kumar16, the Supreme Court observed:

“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

exercise 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.”

Generally, in the following cases, leave to amend will be refused by the court:

1. Leave to amend will be refused when amendment is not necessary for the purpose of

determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The real controversy

13 Leach & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 35714 Ram Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869.15 Someshwari v. Mahshwari, AIR 1936 PC 33216 1974 AIR 1126

5

test is the basic test. In Edevian v. Cohen17, the application for amendment was rejected

since it was not necessary to decide the real question in controversy.

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 defence.18

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 favour.19 Every amendment should

be allowed if it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party.

4. Leave to amend will be refused where the application for amendment is not made in good

faith.20 The leave to amend is to be refused if the applicant has acted mala fide.21

Effect of Amendment

Where an amendment is allowed, such amendment relates back to the date of the suit as

originally filed. In Brij Kishore v. Smt. Mushtari Khatoon22 it was held that the Court must take

the pleadings as they stand after amendment and leave out of consideration the unamended one.

If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the

time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen

days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such 17 (1889) 43 Ch. D 187.18 In Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., (1886) 16 QB 178, the plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the tramways Company for negligence of the company in allowing the tramways to be in a defective condition. The company denied the allegation of negligence. It was not even contended that the company was not the proper party to be sued. More than six months after the written statement was filed, the company applied for leave to amend the defence by adding the plea that under the contract entered into between the company and the local authority the liability to maintain tramways in proper condition was of the latter and, therefore, the company was not liable. On the date of the amendment application, the plaintiff's remedy against the local authority was time barred. Had the agreement been pleaded earlier, the plaintiff could have filed a suit even against the local authority. Under the circumstances, the amendment was refused.19Patil v. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363: 1957 SCR 559; Leach & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC35720 Patil v. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 36321 In Patasibai v. Ratanlal, 1990 SCC (2) 42, 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 for 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.22 Brij Kishore v. Smt. Mushtari Khatoon, AIR 1976 All 399

6

limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended

by the Court. 23

Case study:

Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors24.

The Bench comprising Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Raveendran have

explained the law relating to amendment of pleadings. The Bench has highlighted the

fundamental difference in the approach of Courts while dealing with a prayer for amendment of

the Written Statement vis-a-vis amendment of the Plaint. The bench has observed as under;

Before dealing with the question whether the amendment sought for was rightly rejected by

the High Court or not, we may first consider the principles under which amendments of

pleadings can be allowed or rejected. The principle allowing or rejecting an amendment of the

pleadings has emanated from Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which runs as

under:

"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his

pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be

made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy

between the parties.

Provided that no application for shall be 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"

From a bare perusal of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the

court is conferred with power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and

amendments of the pleadings if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for

determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17

of the Code, however, provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial

has commenced unless the court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party

could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, proviso to Order 6

23 Order 6, Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code, 190824 ( 2007) 5 SCC 602

7

Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable in the present case, as the trial of the suit has not yet

commenced.

It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that

the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious

injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for

amendment was not a bonafide one. In this connection, the observation of the Privy Council in

the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung25 may be taken note of.  The Privy Council

observed:

"All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration

of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to

that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally

exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to

be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit."

It is equally well settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for

amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that

amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action

or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles

relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence

or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would

not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may

be objectionable.

Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written

statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the

question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case26. Even the decision

relied on by the plaintiff in Modi Spinning clearly recognises that inconsistent pleas can be

taken in the pleadings. In this context, we may also refer to the decision of this Court in Basavan

Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary (Dead)27. In that case, the defendant had

initially taken up the stand that he was a joint tenant along with others. Subsequently, he

25 AIR 1922 P.C. 24926 see B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai (2000(1) SCC 712) and Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh (2006 (6) SCC 498)27 1995 Supp (3) SCC 179

8

submitted that he was a licensee for monetary consideration who was deemed to be a tenant as

per the provisions of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control

Act, 1947. This Court held that the defendant could have validly taken such an inconsistent

defence. While allowing the amendment of the written statement, this Court observed in Basavan

Jaggu Dhobi's case as follows:-

"As regards the first contention, we are afraid that the courts below have gone wrong in

holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

by taking a contrary stand than was stated originally in the written statement. This is opposed to

the settled law open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, the

cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being

amended so as to introduce a new cause of action."

As we have already noted herein earlier that in allowing the amendment of the written

statement a liberal approach is a general view when admittedly in the event of allowing the

amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be

permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. In the case of

L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co.28, this Court observed "that the Courts are

more generous in allowing amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is

less likely to operate in that event". In that case this Court also held "that the defendant has right

to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the

proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to serious injustice."

Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of amendment of a written

statement the Courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of

prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of

defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement

can also be allowed, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in

rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India29

28 AIR 1957 SC 35729 2011 STPL(Web) 708 SC

9

The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India has re-itereated the law

relating to amendment of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court, while

considering Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, in several judgments has laid down the principles

applicable in the case of amendment of plaint which are as follows:

8. In order to consider the claim of the plaintiff and the opposition of the defendants, it is

desirable to refer the relevant provisions. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(in short `the Code') enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which reads as under;

"17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either

party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all

such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real

questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall

be 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 provision deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999,

this provision was deleted. 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 proviso, to some extent,

curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after

commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could

not have been sought earlier. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow

either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just.

Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts

10

while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach

should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with

costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.

9. Inasmuch as the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh has approached this Court invoking

the original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, the Rules framed by this

Court, i.e., The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short `the Rules) have to be applied to the case on

hand. Order XXVI speaks about "Pleadings Generally".

Among various rules, we are concerned about Rule 8 which reads as under:

"The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to amend his pleading in

such manner and on such terms as may be just, but only such amendments shall be made as may

be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the

parties."

The above provision, which is similar to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code prescribes that at any

stage of the proceedings, the Court may allow either party to amend his pleadings. However, it

must be established that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the

real question in controversy between the parties.

10. This Court, while considering Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, in several judgments has

laid down the principles to be applicable in the case of amendment of plaint which are as

follows:

1. Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh,30 at para 5:

"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

30 (2009) 10 SCC 626

11

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 laches in making the

application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment."

2. North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRS,31 at

para16:

"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing

amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned,

these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at

any stage of the proceedings.

In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil32 which still holds the field, it

was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of

not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of

determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be

refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the

pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury

which could not be compensated in costs."

31 (2008) 8 SCC 51132 AIR 1957 SC 363

12

3. Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and Others,33 at para 13:

"13. Mr Bharuka, on the other hand, invited our attention to another decision of this

Court in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh34. In para 17 of the decision, it was held and

observed as follows35:

"17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17

CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit

has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in

fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have

yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that

the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial

court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the

Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final

hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of

arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find

any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of

proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion on

the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the

proceedings."

4. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others,36 at paras 15 & 16: "15.

The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case that come before

them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for

33 (2008) 3 SCC 717,34 SLP(C) Nos. 12719-12720/200535 SCC pp. 504-0536 (2006) 4 SCC 385

13

determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not

cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first part is discretionary (may)

and leaves it to the court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative

(shall) and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the

purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties."

5. Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others,37 at para 63:

"63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles

emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the

application for amendment:

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of

the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be

compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the

nature and character of the case; and

(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended

claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the

important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed

under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."

37 (2009) 10 SCC 84,

14

The above principles make it clear that Courts have ample power to allow the application

for amendment of the plaint. However, it must be satisfied that the same is required in the

interest of justice and for the purpose of determination of real question in controversy between

the parties.

Conclusion:

15

Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide true rights of the parties in

trial. Amendment in the pleadings is a matter of procedure. Grant or refusal thereof is in the

discretion of the court. But like any other discretion, such discretion has to be exercised

consistent with settled legal principles. In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram38 (1978) 2 SCR 614,

this Court stated :

“Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice.

Provisions relating to pleading in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case

of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between

parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action

must take.”

It can be concluded that the amendment of pleading is necessary to avoid multiplicity of

civil suits. But, the court cannot grant the leave of amendment at its whims and fancies. There

has to certain criterion for granting or refusing the leave, which has been laid down in case laws.

It is true that parties interested in delaying the trial of the case make misuse of this provision by

moving frivolous amendments and after rejection of the application going in revision before the

higher Court, delaying the proceedings before the lower courts. 39

References

38 Order 6, Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code, 190839 Pg 1064, Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 10th ed.2002, Vol.2, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.

16

Books:

1. Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure, 14th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths

2. B. Senguttervan&S.Ramachandran, “Basu’s The Code of Civil Procedure Law,” (Rev.),

10th ed., 2007, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi.

3. Takwani C.K., ‘Civil Procedure Code’, Edition 5. Reprint 2007, Eastern Book

Publication, Lucknow.

4. Dr. Myneni S.R., ‘The Law of Evidence’. Edition 1. Asia law House, Hyderabad.

5. Halsbury Laws of India, Vol. : Code of Civil Procedure

6. Anil Nandwani, Law of Civil Procedure in India, 1st ed.2006, Allahabad Law Agency,

Faridabad.

7. M.P Jain, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1st ed. 2004, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.

8. Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 10th ed.2002, Vol.2, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.

Websites:

1. www.jurisonline.in

2. www.legalserviceindia.com

3. www.ebc.co.in

17