Gurbakhsh Singh & Ors. v. Buta Singh & Anr.
Background
An ex-parte decree from 1969 in a reversionary-rights suit was challenged decades later by the predecessor of the present appellants, who sought to set it aside. During that later suit, after two official witnesses had already been examined, the appellants sought to amend their plaint to add specific survey/khasra numbers of the disputed land, since the original 1968 suit file could not be traced. The trial court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court both refused the amendment, holding it came too late under the amended Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the proposed amendment did not change the nature or character of the suit: it only supplied correct particulars that could not have been furnished earlier because the original case record was untraceable. Since only two witnesses had been examined at the time the amendment was sought, and the amendment caused no prejudice to the defendants, the "due diligence" bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 did not apply. Relying on its earlier ruling in Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, the Court reiterated that amendments necessary to determine the real controversy should be allowed liberally as long as they cause no injustice to the other side. The appeal was allowed, the amendment permitted, and the trial court directed to proceed with the suit on that basis.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will generally permit amendments to pleadings, even after trial has begun, if the amendment doesn't change the fundamental nature of the case and is genuinely needed to place correct facts before the court, especially when the delay was caused by circumstances beyond a litigant's control (such as a missing case file).