High Court of Karnataka Allows Amendment of Plaint in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Petitioner Permitted to Include Alternative Relief of Possession. Amendment Sought After Evidence Closed but Before Judgment Reserved, Held Not Barred by Order VI Rule 17 CPC Proviso as Trial Had Not Concluded.

A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Commencement of Trial - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars amendment after the trial has commenced unless the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. The Court held that 'commencement of trial' means the date on which the first witness is examined and the case is set down for trial, and not the date of framing of issues. Since the amendment application was filed before the judgment was reserved, the trial had not concluded, and the proviso did not apply. (Paras 8-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Alternative Relief - The Court held that an amendment seeking an alternative relief of possession in a suit for declaration and injunction does not change the nature of the suit but merely clarifies the relief. Such amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice between the parties. (Paras 11-12)

C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The Court observed that the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not an absolute bar but a factor to be considered. In the present case, the amendment was necessitated by subsequent events and the need to avoid further litigation, and the petitioner had shown sufficient cause. (Para 13)

D) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Prejudice - The Court held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as they would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement and lead evidence in rebuttal. The trial court's rejection on the ground of change of nature of suit was erroneous. (Paras 14-15)

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint (I.A.No.IX) filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after the evidence was closed but before the judgment was reserved, on the ground that the trial had commenced and the amendment would change the nature of the suit.

• Amendment of pleadings
• Order VI Rule 17 CPC
• Proviso to Order VI Rule 17
• commencement of trial
• conclusion of trial
• alternative relief
• possession
• declaration
• injunction
• due diligence
• prejudice
• liberal approach
• technicalities
• substantial justice