Madras High Court· 23 September 2026

Must leave to amend a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be refused where no bona fide reason is given for the earlier non-inclusion?

M. Veerapandian v. Mathivannan

CRP.677/2023 · CRP No. 677 of 2023
Coram: Justice R.Rajesh Vivekananthan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil P…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Leave to amend a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be refused where no bona fide reason is given for the earlier non-inclusion.

Yes. Leave to amend a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be refused where no bona fide reason is given for the earlier non-inclusion of the property. The Court accepted that a court should take a liberal view in allowing pre-trial amendments, especially in partition suits, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. But where the party seeking the amendment knew of the existence of the property when the plaint was presented, and had not pleaded that further properties would be added once details were known, the belated application discloses no sufficient cause and is dishonest rather than bona fide.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VI r.17 — Amendment of plaint — Partition suit — Bona fides and delay — Prejudice to the opposite side — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VI r.17 — Leave to amend — Want of a bona fide explanation — Held: Leave to amend a plaint must be refused where no bona fide reason is given for the earlier non-inclusion of the property. A party who knew of the property when the plaint was presented shows no sufficient cause. (¶14, 19) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VI r.17 — Liberal approach — Injustice to the other side — Held further: The liberal approach to pre-trial amendment in a partition suit does not extend to an amendment that causes prejudice or injustice to the other side. Civil revision dismissed. (¶17, 20)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 14The petitioner alleges that the proposed 8th item of the property belongs to the joint family and he is in joint possession of the proposed properties. If at all, the proposed 8th item is of the joint family property, the petitioner would definitely have knowledge of its existence as to its survey number and other details, as admittedly his property is situated adjacent to the proposed 8th item. When it is his own case that he knew about the proposed properties at the time of filing the plaint, no sufficient cause has been shown for failure to find the detail of the property at the earliest point of time. Instead, the petitioner seeks for amendment belatedly after a lapse of nearly 8 years.

Paragraph 19As held in the above case, the petitioner has filed the amendment petition after eight years without providing any reason for non-inclusion of the two items at the time of presenting the plaint, and specifically non-inclusion of his own property, which was assigned by the Government in the year 2009. Therefore, as far as this case is concerned, this Court feels that there is no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court in not allowing the amendment petition.

Acts & Sections

Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M. Veerapandian v. Mathivannan — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an amendment to the plaint be allowed where it causes prejudice or injustice to the other side?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections