In a recent ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized the essence of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), highlighting that the purpose of amendments to pleadings is to serve the cause of justice rather than impede it.

A bench presided over by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has underscored the importance of...

“The object of the Rule 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 as ultimately”.

Justice Wani stressed that their fundamental role is to administer justice rather than penalize litigants. He reiterated that courts possess the authority to facilitate amendments of pleadings to guarantee comprehensive justice for all parties involved.

The case centered around Khazan Singh, who initiated a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against her sons-in-law in relation to a land dispute. Subsequently, upon recognizing an error, she endeavored to amend the suit by incorporating additional land. However, the Trial Court dismissed her application for an amendment.

Khazan Singh, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the High Court, contending that the Trial Court's dismissal was arbitrary and failed to consider the merits of the case. The bench, focusing on the underlying principle of Order VI Rule 17, elucidated that this rule grants courts the authority to permit amendments at any phase of the proceedings. This provision serves to facilitate a fair and thorough resolution of the substantive issues between the parties involved.

Furthermore, the bench underscored that amendments ought to be permitted unless they result in undue prejudice to the opposing party.

The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in "Mahila Ramkali Devi and others v. Nand Ram (dead) through legal representatives and others" (2015), which reaffirmed the principle that courts are established to administer justice rather than to penalize parties for procedural oversights.

In alignment with this principle, Justice Wani ruled that denying the amendment would only exacerbate litigation, contravening the spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Consequently, the impugned order was overturned, and the application for amendment was granted, albeit subject to 5K costs.

Case Title: Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh