Amendment of the Plaint (Part 2)

There's a case, 2018 YLR page 731, because a protective right has already accrued in the defendant's favour, that, sir, the suit filed, which set the civil machinery in motion, is not maintainable under any one, or more than one, or all four of these grounds. So if you're seeking to amend the plaint just so it becomes maintainable, the court will say no, this will be rejected. Now there's no need to panic here, people do get scared, that on this basis, for instance, you didn't properly disclose a cause of action, you didn't set out the facts properly so you aren't bound by law, you didn't properly value the suit when you could have, you didn't affix the court fee when you could have. If your application is dismissed on these grounds, it doesn't mean your doors are closed, you can file the suit afresh if you're still within limitation. There's no need to panic, thinking the suit was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 and the world has ended, no, that's not the case, you can file the suit again. If court fee wasn't affixed and the suit was dismissed, refile the case and affix the court fee. If no ground was pleaded that establishes a cause of action, and that ground actually exists, you can refile, if you're within limitation.

That's the whole detail about Order 6 Rule 17 I wanted to give you. Now the most important part: I've received countless applications from tehsil courts, small stations, regarding Order 6 Rule 17, that it was dismissed, that permission should be sought from the High Court. When I read that application, even from Lahore, this happens in Lahore too, I felt like banging my head. 'Application for permission to be granted for amendment of the plaint, I was unable to write these facts, permission for its amendment be granted, permission for amendment of certain facts be granted.' Brother, this is not the proper form of an application, the law does not accept it, the court will not accept it. The proper procedure is: write the application as 'Application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment, for grant of permission to amend the plaint,' and then below that write, sir, these were the reasons, these were the facts I could not write, so I be permitted to make the following amendments, and those amendments should be specific: in paragraph 2 these facts were written, and then it jumped to paragraph 3, these facts I could not write, so you must write, after paragraph 2, this be treated as paragraph 3, or permission be granted to insert a new paragraph 2-A. In paragraph 4, these facts were written, these were not, permission be granted to amend it as paragraph 4-A, with the exact wording, that these words be permitted to be added, in the cause of action these words after such-and-such word and before such-and-such word be permitted to be inserted, in the relief clause, after such-and-such word and before such-and-such word, this amendment be permitted. This is the proper application, in which the court, with a clear mind, hears your position, and after hearing it, understands it, and after understanding it, grants you permission, so that the opposing party is not given the chance to say this is a weak application. You cannot give anyone unlimited power to amend. Courts do not have unlimited power just because you say, I didn't write these facts, permit me to write them now. The court will never accept such an application, this is not an acceptable application. The specific words you want to add to the plaint or written statement, the specific words you want to add to the relief clause, that change you want to make must be precise. Tie up all four corners, file that application, and then satisfy the court that this does not change the literal composition of the suit, this should be part of your application, that it does not contest a change in the suit's character, does not introduce an alternative relief, therefore permission for amendment be granted to me, and if I am not permitted to make this amendment, I apprehend irreparable loss before it occurs, I apprehend harm. Courts are not machines, a court is a person possessing judicial wisdom, whom you call a judge, and a judge does not do 2+2=4, he is not a mathematician, he must hear you with judicial wisdom, and he must move toward resolving the important dispute at hand. If the court understands that you are creating confusion with these applications, it will not accept your application, but if you succeed in convincing the judge that no, to fulfil the requirements of justice, for a judgment based on justice, this is necessary, he will certainly accept it. I hope I have given you a comprehensive lecture on amendment of pleadings or the plaint.