 In almost all cases, either the parties utilized this opportunity. In fact, this is the provision which is mostly used and abused. Because of its abuse, the parliament, when they amended the civil procedure code, they dropped these proceedings. They deleted the proceedings from the civil procedure code, that is the 1999 amendment. Then the lawyers were up in Adams. They had an agitation in Delhi, probably going to the demands. In 2002 amendment, retiring the original provision, a proviso was added. So that's the history, this provision is the checkered history. Now coming to the provision and its utility is concerned. Let me tell you, this provision is there in the CPC from 1908. The question is, why do you need an amendment to a predation? If the law is, once we have come to court with a particular case, either you should succeed or lose on that basis, why the very law provides for an amendment? In my understanding of the law, when they provide a specific provision for amendment, it presupposes that the predings which are filed in the Indian court or for the matter anywhere will not be complete always. Either there will be some omissions or some mistakes or some additions are required. And therefore the legislature has taken care to see that a good cause is not lost because of a defect in the pleadings. As you are all aware, the pleadings are drafted by the lawyers. How fair it is to penalize a party for a defect in the pleadings. Party has approached the lawyer, he has made his peace. Lawyer is a learned man. He is expected to know the law and plead properly. Here, even a lawyer, however learned maybe has a limitation. He is human. So keeping this in mind, this provision in my understanding is introduced in the CPC court, providing for amendment to the pleadings. So that in the end of the day, justice does not suffer on technical grounds. Therefore, when we are talking about amendment of pleadings, amendment has a different connotation in different contexts. Now we are only concerned about the meaning of the word amendment in the context of the pleadings and in law. An amendment is a formal or an official change. A formal or an official change made to a law, contract, constitution or other legal document. It is based on the verb amend, which means to change for better. To change for better. They are often used when it is better to change the document than to write a new one. So in this context, when we are talking about amendment of pleadings, by an amendment, you are going to better the pleadings, which is already before the court. Then the question would arise, what do you mean by the word pleading? The word pleading has been defined in the civil procedure court. So we cannot look into the English dictionary meaning. Order 6 rule 1 CPC specifically says what do you mean by pleading? It is very important in the present day context because everything filed into court is not pleading. Pleading shall mean the word used is shall. Pleading shall mean plain or written state. When we are talking about arbitration, you file a claim petition, they file a written statement, then you file a rejoinder. For that to reply, sub rejoinder, sub reply, there is no end to this pleading at all. Yes, part is an opportunity, you file it. In law, in law, pleading only means the claim of the person who has come before the court and the written statement filed to that. And it is on the basis of this, you have to frame the issues, not this expanded pleading which has no virtually has become a practice. So therefore, when we are talking about pleading and amendment to pleading, first and foremost thing we have to bear in mind is it is amendment of the plaint or amendment of the written statement. But the very same principles are also applied to the written proceedings. There it is a written petition and a statement of defence filed to the written petition. If it is arbitration case, it is a claim statement and a statement of defence filed to that claim statement. That is what the pleading in law means and when we are talking about amendment of pleading, this is a factor which we have to bear in mind. Another important provision which we have to bear in mind when talking about amendment of pleading sees, order 6 rule 2 says what the pleading should contain before you amend. You should know what it should contain and then we will know what it has not contained or what should not have been there so that it requires amendment. Order 6 rule 2 specifically says pleading to state material facts and not evidence. Today unfortunately this rule has been breached in almost all cases. Today's pleading contains plea, evidence, arguments, statutory provisions are also incorporated. Sometimes even Supreme Court judgments are also important. Quite contrary to the law. If anybody wants to carry out his profession in a professional manner, in a manner which the law expects him to do, they should bear this provision in mind. It specifically says material facts are not evidence. Every pleading shall contain and contain only a statement in a concise form. Today nobody believes in concise form. It is very elaborate, very liberal and it runs to pages. Sometimes the paragraph runs to pages in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. So this is another important rule which a lawyer who is drafting a plaint or written statement should bear in mind. So it is in this background we have to see why an amendment is required. When a claim is put forth the defendant should know what the claim is. The principles of natural justice demands that the opposite party against two allegations are made. Should be able to understand what the claim is so that he could put forth his case before the court. So this law of pleadings, the underlying principle is the principles of natural justice. You tell us the court what the grievances, the judge also should understand what your grievances and more so the opposite party should understand so that you will have an opportunity to meet the case. And then the role of the judge comes in. So it is in this context when we are talking about amendment of grievance that is contained in order 6 rule 17 of the civil procedure court. As I said before 2002 there was no provisional. These are the most abused provision in the civil procedure court. Sometimes in the case you will find more than one amendment applications. Now why is this provision so familiar or popular and used by the advocates? As I said every human lawyer sometimes in the tremendous pressure he has to approach the court immediately. Some entry mortgages required whatever material is able to gather. Sometimes it is not possible to gather all material or sometimes all documents are not made available to him but some imminent danger is there, he has to approach the court. So the best of his ability is put forth his case in the best possible manner but that is not the best, it has shortcomings. In such circumstances the law recognizes this and provides for amendment of the pleadings. So what does it say? The court may mark this word at any stage of the proceedings. This word at any stage of the proceedings for the subject matter of interpretation by various courts including the Supreme Court. It has been interpreted to mean at any stage of the proceedings means not necessarily in the trial court. The appeal is a continuation of the original suit. Second appeal is a continuation of the original suit in the first appeal. Therefore this word at any stage of the proceedings has been interpreted to mean not only before the judgment of the trial court. If the matter is pending in the first appeal court or the second appeal court even then at any stage means even at the appeal stage, even at the second appeal stage sometimes even at the Supreme Court stage these application amendments are not because the law specifically says the court may at any stage of the proceedings. The word used this may it means it is left to the discretion of the court though the court has the power to allow an amendment at any stage of the proceedings still that discretion to allow or not to allow is vested with the court. So what is that? Allow either party so it is not confined to plaintiff. That's why I said pleadings means plaintiff and written statement. Therefore equal rights are given to the plaintiff and also the defendant. Either party to alter it may be an case of alteration or amend his pleadings. Alter or amend these are the two key words which a lawyer and a judge should bear in mind. I will be demonstrating how ignoring this word many judgments have come. Alter or amend. So amendment and alteration the two words are can give two different meanings. They are not one when the legislature uses these two words specifically. Alteration is not amendment. Amendment is not alteration. So the power of the court is to permit a pleading to be altered or to be amended. In his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as we be just. Now what is the criteria for allowing an amendment? It has been specifically said all such amendments shall be made as will be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. That is a test. At any stage of proceedings either party may alter amend the pleadings. And such an amendment if it is required for the proper determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. The court and the district wide description to allow the amendment. So the object is noble to see that the parties have full opportunity of litigating before the court. And in law they cannot again come to the court saying this ground I have not heard in the earlier portion. The other provisions will put in the court prohibit a second suit will find merely on the ground that this particular point was not treated early. You have what is known as the indicator constructive indicator. If a ground could have been taken and if the ground is not taken, then their parties prohibited from rising it on the ground of principles of constructive indicator. Similarly, order to rule to if a ground is available and you don't raise it, you will not be allowed to raise it over again. Therefore it is necessary in the suit which you have filed. At any stage if you want to alter amend the pleadings the law provides for it. This is what a lawyer should bear in mind merely because if he has committed some mistake he need not feel shy. Ultimately the interest of the party justice of the cause should be done. So therefore it is a provision which enables the lawyer to make the corrections. Now the question is, how is this discretion normally exercised with the courts? Though it is exercised with the courts, it is the interest of the parties. And now more than essentially the law is well set. Except this provision there is no other provision. But there is a case law on this now the law is well set. So what are those settled principles which govern this amendment application today? So briefly stated, the first and the foremost principle with the lawyer and the judge should bear in mind is the court has the wide discretion in allowing them. The word used is may at any stage that shows the wide discretion which is given to the court. And the second and most important thing is court has the discretion. But how do you exercise the discretion? It says technicalities of law should not come in the way of allowing amendments. So technical arguments are to be shunned because ultimately court has to do justice. Yes parties will argue, lawyers will argue, whatever may be their argument if it is technical if upheld justice is going to suffer then the technical arguments should not be upheld. Then as I said it is a mistake on the part of the lawyer. Sometimes it so happens that mistake is pointed out in the written statement. Rarely I find we find after the objection is pointed out he could have made an amendment. They don't make it. So time lapse is there. Only probably at the time of trial when they look into it they get it. Or sometimes during the course of the trial they find something is to be done. Therefore what the law says is negligence, carelessness, delay on the part of the parties of the lawyers should not be a ground to refuse adjournment if that amendment is necessary for the proper determination of the real questions in controversy. So preference is given to justice. Throughout there may be some negligence, carelessness, delay and some injustice done to the opposite party. Inconvenience is cost to the opposite party that could be compensated in terms of money by imposing costs for being negligent, for being carelessness. But that is not a ground for refusing an amendment if that amendment is necessary for the proper determination of the real controversy between the parties. Now when an amendment is pleaded the question is whether that amendment should be allowed or not. What is pleaded is to be proved for the party to succeed. That is after the amendment is allowed. So in deciding whether an amendment is to be allowed or not, the court has to look into the amended plea to find out whether the plea is necessary for the determination of the real controversy. But the court should not embark upon an inquiry to find out the merits of the amendment. That is private merits. He should give an opportunity. He should do evidence, cross examination, arguments. He is taking a plea whether the plea is necessary is all what is to be done and the court should not inquire into the merits of that particular claim. It is a well settled principle for the years. So therefore, ultimately what the court has to look into is whether that particular amendment is necessary for the proper determination of the real controversy in the parties. Then the question arises, when we say it is discretionary, in what cases then court can reject this amendment? That is also now well settled by a catanoff case law. See, if the amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the controversy, that is a good case for the criminal. If it is a mere technical or some useless frivolous allegations are made, please take it. It has nothing to do with the case. There is a good ground for rejecting it, though the law is amendment applications have to be allowed liberally. When they say allowed liberally, that does not mean you should allow everything without even applying your mind. Then sometimes it so happens the party has created some case, defendant has effectively met that case. Now the plaintiff feels he has no case at all. Then he will not be allowed to come up with totally a different case which would displace the defendant's defense. In such circumstances, probably the court would be in the fact that particular case justified in refusing amendment, allowing the amendment. And sometimes it so happens, by lapse of time, certain rights accrued to the opposite party. So the question is, if you allow amendment today, that right which is accrued to him with the lapse of time is going to be taken away. Is it just for the court to allow an amendment so as to take away the right of the opposite party? In the end of the day, it all depends on that particular facts of the case. So my understanding is the judges, while allowing or dismissing the application, they have used certain phrases. When a valuable right is accrued to the other party, when a western right is accrued to the other party, that cannot be taken away. There is no law on that point. That his understanding is giving a reason for rejecting it. And in a given case, that may be a good reason, but the general proposition of law, you cannot say that's the ground on which an amendment has to be rejected. Now as I said, this application was the most abused provision in the civil procedure court. That was coming in the way of delay of disposal of cases. After the evidence is over, when the plaintiff feels that his case is weak, he will come up with something else. Then additional written statement, additional issues, additional evidence, additional argument. So therefore, what the parliament said was to restrict the power of the court today to allow the amendments. And the earlier provisions stood at any stage of the proceedings. The court had a decision to allow amendment resulted in these unwanted things. Therefore an attempt, as I said, originally that provision itself was amended. There was a big agitation. Then they restored it with the proviso. Now the question is, what is that proviso meant for? How it is operating? And how now today we have to understand the provision of order 6 to 17. The proviso said, they did not change the law. Yes, at any stage of the proceedings, you can permit an amendment if it is required. But a proviso was added to say, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. After the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Now even today an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings. Even in first appeal, even in second appeal, law has not been changed. But what they have done is this discretion which vested with the court has been tried. What they now say is because of the proviso, the entire object of this proviso was to stall the filing of application of amendment of reading subsequent to the commencement of the trial. They said, before trial do whatever you want. There the court has added your discretion to allow the amendment. You allow the amendment. Allowing the amendment is a rule. This result is an exception. That was earlier rule. That rule continues to be there even today till the stage of commencement of trial. So once trial has commenced, the other party cannot be taken by surprise by virtue of this amendment. That is precisely what they try to do by introduction of this proviso. So this proviso helps today in checking delays in filing the application seeking amendment. So the lawyer should be very careful. You know, the lawyer is changed. If he wants an amendment, immediately after the written statement is filed, even after the filing of the issue, he has to go through it. And if something is wanting, he is at liberty to file an application amendment and plug the loophole, even if it's a loophole and see that the trial goes on. So therefore, though this proviso puts a embargo or a bar on the power of the court, as the section stands, it is not a complete bar. Even today, in spite of the proviso, if an amendment is necessary for the proper determination of the real controversy, and if that amendment could not be brought in in spite of due diligence, put in the power to allow the amendment. So therefore, earlier the amendment to the law, as a matter of course, attenuated the proceedings. Today, if an amendment is developed, after the trial has commenced, the party seeking amendment should make out a case that in spite of due diligence, he could not read it. If he is able to make out a case, then at any stage of the proceedings, the feelings of the parties could be amended. So that's the difference in the law. Now, let me point out to you, few other enactments where this proviso or amendment is there, especially the specific effect. They also speak about amendment. But the law relating to amendment found under order 6 to 17 is not applicable to the amendment applications filed under the provisions of the specific effect. The reason being, section 21 of the specific effect deals with power to award compensation in certain cases. You know, when you file a suit of specific performance, you want to specifically enforce the contract. The party has been given the right to seek for additional prayer or alternative prayer. Sometimes these alternative players are not treated. Therefore section 21 says no compensation, 21-5 says no compensation shall be awarded under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in his claim. He should seek for specific performance. In the alternative, he could also seek for compensation. Suppose he has not sought for compensation. Trial goes on. And by the time the trial is over, the party knows where he stands. He is not able to produce sufficient evidence to get a specific performance. Though he was entitled to compensation in law, because he has not pleaded, the section says don't grant him compensation. But there's a proviso. That proviso says, where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in the claim, the court shall at any stage of the proceeding, see the word, the court shall at any stage of the proceeding allow him to amend the claim on such terms as to be just for including a claim for such compensation. So here if an amendment application is filed under this proviso, claiming compensation in a suit for specific performance, merely because the trial has begun, the entire trial is over and even the arguments are over, that will not come in the way of the party seeking for compensation by filing an application. Because section says if he has not claimed it, don't grant it. But if he finds an application for seeking that relief, grant it. So it's an equitable relief. When we are dealing with an equitable relief, this bar contained in the proviso to order 6 rule 17 is not applicable. Even in cases where the trial is completed, normally these applications filed a fact under the case and the court had the power to allow this amendment. Similarly, section 22 of the specifically fact, very wide, in addition to the relief for specific performance, the party is entitled to the relief of possession, relief of partition and refund of earnest money. He has not claimed it. He is so confident he is going to succeed. Only after trial he comes to know chances are very bleak. But certainly he is entitled to these reliefs. If he is not in possession, he is entitled to possession. If the property does not exclusively belongs to the person who has entered into agreement, he can file a suit for seek for partition. Assuming that specific performance is not available, he is also entitled to refund of money. But section 22, though provides for such a relief, 222 says no relief under clause A or B of subsection 1 shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. So a specific prayer, specific claim is to be found in the pleading. If you have not claimed it, you are not entitled to it, even though in law you are entitled. This has a provisional. That provisional says, where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the playing, the court shall. Where do this court shall not make, court shall at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaintiff on certain terms and maybe just for including a claim for such relief. So therefore here no discretion is given to the court. If he files an application, you must allow the application and then grant the relief. Similarly, we thought about compensation, refund return, return of unless money, then another concept is damages. In addition to the relief of specific performance, a party is also entitled to damages from breach of contract. So therefore section 14 of the specific effect deals with damages in lieu of or in addition to injunction. Now if that relief is not sought, 42 says no relief or damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief in the playing. The proviso provided that where no damages have been claimed in the playing, the court shall at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the playing on such terms as to be just for including such claim. So therefore if an application for amendment is to be considered under these provisions and specifically act, the law dealing with order 6 through 17 has no application in particular the proviso introduced by way of an amendment in 2002. Without the prayer, court will devour from granting the relief. But if he files an application, court has no discretion except to allow the application and grant the relief. Sometimes I find ignoring these provisions, applications are filed relying on the proviso and according to me is a great injustice. That is the procedural law. This is the substantive law. The substantive law has to be preferred to the procedural law insofar as amendment is concerned when specific provisions are made in the specifically act. Now this is the law but we have a hundred years of case. It so happens as days pass by you forget what the law earlier you start new law and there's a confusion. Now normally the question put and the objection taken to these amendment applications are in this amendment application. The plaintiff is putting forth a new claim which has not put forth earlier. Can it be granted? Sometimes it is said this is what he has pleaded. See what the amendment is. The amended plea is inconsistent with the plea which has already taken. Can such a plea be permitted? If an amendment rises a plea which is inconsistent with the plea which is already taken, can such an amendment be allowed? Now commonly we said if you allow this amendment it changes the nature of the sue. Can such an amendment be allowed? Then sometimes it is said this is the cause of action pleaded. Look at the amendment. He's pleading it. All together a new cause of action can such amendments be allowed? Then they say sometimes admissions are made in the pleadings. After the objections are filed to the opposite party he realizes the mistake. He wants to withdraw the amendment. Admission. Is it permissible? After withdrawing it, he wants to plead something which is totally inconsistent with what has already pleaded. Is it permissible in law? Sometimes the original suit is filed in time by where an amendment is going to seek for an additional relief. That additional relief is bought by time. Can an amendment be allowed raising a plea which is bought by time? Because normally when an amendment is allowed, that amendment dates back to the date of the filing of the suit. The amendment dates back to the date of filing of the written statement. So a time-bought claim on this principle becomes well within time. Can such an amendment be allowed? Because once a claim is bought by time, the opposite party has acquired a right, a vested right. Now by allowing an amendment you are taking away that right. Is it permissible? Then suit, maintainability of the suit. Suit is filed, defendant has filed a written statement and by an amendment he wants to contain, the suit is not painted. He did not say earlier. So is there a bar? And of course there is a considerable delay. These are some of the questions. In some cases on these grounds it is dismissed. Some cases it is allowed. There is no law as such. It is only a judgment law. So in this context, what should be the correct provision? Is there any provision in law which shows some great on this? Please look into all these judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. One provision which has not been noticed while rendering these judgments is order 6, room 7, 7, 2, 3, 4. That's what I want to bring you to the notice of the lawyers, including the judges. Order 6, room 7. When you are dealing with order 6, room 17, you must bear in mind what order 6, room 7 specifically says. What does it say? It speaks about departure. You have come to court. You want to depart from what you have stated. Is it permissible? No pleading shall. Please see the verdicts. No pleading shall except by way of amendment. You remove that word except by way of amendment. Read this section. No pleading shall rise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of act inconsistent with the previous pleading. So the party pleading the same. That's the law. If you have said something, you should stick to this one. You will not be allowed to change. If you want to change, this provision says by way of amendment you can do it. That is the reason why the provision is inserted. Law specifically says you have come to court. You have put forth a particular claim. You have taken a particular stand. You have predicted certain things. You should succeed or lose on the basis of the pleading and you are entitled to that claim or not. You can't lead evidence without a plea. That's the question. Any amount of evidence without a plea, the court can't look into it. You plead something and you don't lead evidence. It has no use. This is the first principle. But this provision says if you want to rise any new ground, if you want to make an allegation of fact inconsistent with the pleading, that means already made. By all means you do it. By way of an amendment. By way of an amendment made by filing an application under order 6 to 17. When this provision clearly says by way of an amendment you can put forth a new claim. You can plead something inconsistent with what you are pleading. If the court was to refuse on the ground, no, no, no. It's a new claim. I will not allow it. It is inconsistent with the earlier pleading. It may not be a correct approach. At the same time, because this provision provides for it, you cannot ignore what you have done earlier. It affirms the principles of natural justice. So in the end of the day, what I would like to stress is there is no want of power in the court. There is no want of power in the court to allow amendments. Putting forth a new claim. Putting forth a stand which is inconsistent with the earlier stand. Trying to withdraw an admission made. Trying to plead something which is bought by time. But in the given set of facts, if the court is the view that it is bona fide, if the bona fide mistake, the court has the power to allow such amendments. But if the court feels it is a bona fide exercise done with the purpose of delaying the proceedings, confusing things, they don't arise for consideration, the court is well within the jurisdiction to reject it. You cannot say, as a proposition of law, you cannot say as a proposition of law by an amendment, you cannot put forth a new claim. You cannot plead facts which are inconsistent because the section specifically says so. If you say so, it runs counter to all the excuses. If it is not bona fide, if it is mala fide, if it is frivolous, the object is to delay the proceedings. And it is done, there is no good faith. Court may refuse to exercise the discretion. But it cannot be let down as a proposition of law. So therefore, there is a very important provision, both for the lawyers and the judges. And the ultimate object of this is, as I said, every human party trusted the lawyer and interested the brief. The lawyer, to the best of his ability, has done it. But once he realizes some mistakes, realizes some facts are not predicted, some facts are wrongly predicted, some mistake has kept him. The law gives him a chance to rectify it. It will be his bound and duty to do it, otherwise he will be failing in his duty. But at the same time, by exercising this power confronted with this provision, you cannot abuse the process. And that's where the court should be careful. So in some way substance is, in the end of the day, both the party and the court, if they are acting in aid of justice, interested in doing justice. In trying to find out the truth. And if it is, that exercise is hampered for want of any deficiency. If amendment could fulfill it by all means, that is permissible at any stage of the proceedings, at any stage of the proceedings. Now, this is the law as far as civil procedure for discussion. As I said, in the proceedings also, we come across the situations. Normally rituals, parts of the, all the high courts say the provisional civil procedure court are applicable. Therefore CPC is made applicable to the civil proceedings. Now the question is, what about the arbitration? Arbitration act says strict rules of civil procedure court and evidence act is not applicable. Because they thought that comes in the way of speed and disposal. And therefore an option is given to the parties. Now, have they, in any way, restrain or put any embargo on the powers of the arbitrator to social amendments? Section 23 of the arbitration and conciliation act deals with the subject. It speaks about the statement of claim and defense. And then after saying that, rule 3 speaks about amendment. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Because the procedure to be followed in an arbitration case is, the first option is given to the parties to decide the procedure. If the parties do not decide the procedure, then the option is given to the arbitrator. Even if the arbitrator doesn't do it, then the law. So therefore they say unless otherwise agreed by the parties, either party, either party, may amend. Here the word alter is not there. Amendment or supplement is claim. No alterations. Out of 6 to 17, it speaks about alteration and amendment. Whereas arbitration act speaks about amend or supplement addition. Is claim or defense during the course of arbitral proceedings. So there the word attorneys say the proceedings is not used. You cannot file an amendment application in 34 proceedings. You cannot file an amendment application in 37 proceedings. Therefore the legislature has carefully used the word during the course of arbitral proceedings. Here the distinction we find in the proviso to order 6 to 17 is missing. Of course, this is a provision which was enacted in 1986. That provision was amended in 2002. So this is prior to the amendment. But still the word used is during the course of arbitral proceedings. That is from the filing of the time provision till an award is passed during that arbitral proceedings. If the party, either party wants to amend or supplement his claim or defense, it is permitted. Unless, unless the arbitral tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow the amendment or supplement have regard to the delay in making. Delay, delay is the whole object of this arbitral proceedings is to see that there is no delay in disposal of this. It is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It is said civil courts take time and this is a better one. At least here you get a faster remedy. So if an amendment is application results in delay or application is made unduly. Delay, then the arbitral tribunal's registration may refuse. Otherwise, an application amendment in an arbitration case, either to amend the client or the statement reference is permissible during the course of arbitral proceedings. Here you will not show that the due diligence, he could not have done it before the framing of the issues or before the commencement of trial. Those requirements provided in proviso to order 6 to 17 has no application to arbitration proceedings because in the arbitration proceedings, a specific provision is made for amendment of proceedings. You cannot alter the proceedings. You can amend the proceedings. You can supplement the proceedings and do the proceedings, but if the arbitrator feels it is inappropriate to allow this. That can happen only on the facts of that particular. There is no law. If in the facts of the case, the arbitrator feels it is inappropriate to allow the amendment or there is an inordinate delay in filing the amendment or the delay is hampering the progress of the case. In his discretion, he can refuse the amendment. But the parties want to agree in an arbitration case. Yes, I can file the amendment application at any stage till the award is passed, the arbitrator will respond. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the law is yes, you can file an application amendment, but if it is inappropriate in the eyes of the arbitrator or results in delay, he would be well within his jurisdiction to say sorry, no and dismiss the application. So this is the somewhat substance of the law dealing with amendments on the civil procedure court applicable to the truth and also the arbitration and conciliation procedures. In our substance, this is the law dealing with civil matters. In civil matters, this amendment plays a very, very important role, very important role in administration of justice and see that parties, whatever may be their mistakes, deficiencies in the management of the proceedings, make up in the end and have a considered judgment so that they should not have a given that they did not put forth this case or they should not make an attempt to put forth that case by starting an independent proceedings. So this is somewhat substance of the law dealing with amendment of readings in a civil matter. So let me, I would be glad to have any few questions from the audience. Yes, sir. Mr. Manish. Yeah, Manish. Sir, my question is that would limitation not apply, can you amend it in a manner to completely alter your claim in so far as a suit is concerned at a later stage. One brittle language gives an opportunity to create that kind of a dispute that if you can amend it at any stage, you amend it in a manner that even the three after three years, you can change that position. Would it be would that be taken into consideration or any at any stage of the proceedings that will be permissible. And I was at OPD and even on the Supreme Court of that point in the earliest judgment leech versus leech 1950 Supreme Court. They said, even time bar claims could be the subject matter of amendment. And subsequently they have said, whether the particular please bought by limitation or not. If such an argument is put forth, the ideal situation would be, although the amendment from the day application is fine. So that if it is bought by time, the claim will be dismissed. Okay, whether it is bought by time or not is a mixed set question of law and fire cannot be decided at the stage of considering the application of amendment. To be on the safer side, the court can say, I will permit this amendment from the day you have filed the application. That's the way you are thinking for it. Let us consider in the end of the day, on that day, whether the suit for the claim is bought by limitation or not. So it doesn't enlarge the time, but it only gives you an opportunity to plead. Yes, that's correct. Because when you filed a suit, you could have put forth a claim which is all about my time. The defendant will take a sentence suit is bought by time. So unless clearly it is mentioned, either gone into the trial, an issue will be framed, whether the claim is bought by the law of limitation or not. Evidence is adduced and after the evidence, the court has to decide it. And that exercise cannot be done at the time of considering an application problem. So even otherwise, the law says that you should be asking. They say that once it is bought, then it shouldn't be allowed. That's what I said. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm only saying that. I know there are times when the amendment should not be allowed. If it changes the cause of action, it should not be allowed. New claims should not be allowed. You have any number of judgments. That's why I showed you order 6, order 7, rule 6. Statutory provision is there. Departure. Yeah. Except amendment, you cannot do the department. Yes. I was just taking it out. We don't have any questions. We will ask Amit Guleria. Since Mr. Manish is unmuted, he can propose a vote of thanks before we do. And then we will ask Amit Guleria from the National Law University. He represents South Gamia. And he's also otherwise the general counsel for the DLF. Okay. What a, what a, what a confluence or a triveni, which we have created of the judiciary, the practicing advocates, those who are working as in-house councils for the companies like me. And also, South Gamia, which is a think tank. Again, it is the objective is the objective is to create law and order and not just law, law and justice and just not law. And the law is an instrument to achieve higher purposes. Such a mundane provision of amendment or proceedings, the manner in which Justice Kumar has eluded it reminds me of the Keswanandan Bharti case itself, where again the point was amendment, whether the constitution in the name of amendment can be abrogated by itself and amendment and abrogation. I did not think that even this provision would have those kinds of intricacies where it is amendment and a supplement and a new and abrogation and all these proceedings will also be taken into consideration. The manner in which Justice Kumar has narrated the history of this provision. In that light, a lot of justice can be done while practitioners in-house or otherwise lawyers, they are making their amendment, they would know the principles, the manner in which honorable justice has connected the specific relief act along with the substantive provision, along with the procedural procedure provision and the applicability of the same in a writ and also in so far as the arbitration and the fact that the arbitration provisions were there even before this amendment was introduced and so far as the provisor is concerned and how it will operate. So beautifully it has been summarized that it has, it is very difficult for me to summarize what he has said and this is an educational video in which people I would urge all lawyers, judges, students, in-house councils and all those who are associated with law to go through this in a great detail, the judgments which have been cited, the provisions which are there, that will make life and justice easier. We cannot be more thankful with folded hands. We thank you for this very session. It is very, very illuminating, sir. Thank you. I thank on everybody's behalf. Thank you once again. Now two questions have come out before we part. This is by Rishika Bojwani. Sir, what is the procedure for amending a typographical error? Typographical error at a bleeding could be corrected by an amendment application under order 6 to 70 and there are other two provisions, 152 and 153. Strictly speaking, 152 and 153 speaks about amendment in orders. I would say order 6 to 17 is the correct provision for amending a typographical error found in the pleadings. This is by Mukand. Please explain the commencement of trial in terms of the proviso to order 6 rule 17. Yes, there are some confusing judgments, but in my view, in a civil matter, the trial commences after the issues are framed and the case is posted for the evidence of the plaintiff. There are cases where today the evidence of the plaintiff is by way of an amendement. Examination in chief is by way of an amendement and then cross-examination. So the question is, once the plaintiff files his amendement evidence, can you say the trial has commenced? Strictly speaking, yes, trial has commenced. But what is the object of this? In my view, the object is before they commence, that means the defendant commences his cross-examination. If the plaintiff wants to alter or amend the pleadings, in my understanding, proviso is not active. Because once he cross-examines and gets some answers and then you want to alter it, then you must comply with the requirements of the proviso. In the affidavit filed by way of an exam in chief, what is stated in the plaintiff is repeated, nothing new. So it is to be tested in cross-examination. When it is tested in cross-examination, some evidence or answers come in, which will affect the case of the plaintiff. And to get over that they want to amend, then we can say trial has commenced and you have to come within the proviso. So therefore, in a civil suit, trial commences after the issues are framed and when the case is posted for evidence of the plaintiff, especially when the cross-examination starts out of the amendment to the CPC. This is the last question we will be taking. This is by Abhay Chukala. Is there any bar for court to pass in order for a fund of honest money by exercising the expar even in the absence of prayer or seeking amendment by the plaintiff? Section 21-22 is a clear bar. You have a right to get back, court has the power to grant it, but it says there shall be a plea. And that is the reason why the proviso says once an application is filed, you have no discussion, you have to allow the application and order for it. If you go by the provision, it specifically says the court shall not order for refund unless there is a specific plea. And then the proviso says if an application is filed at any stage, court shall allow it and grant it. Thank you, sir. So I will request Amit, Professor Amit from the National Law University who is representing the university right now to propose the vote of thanks. Over to you, Amit. Thank you so much, sir. Thanks a lot for inviting me for addressing the vote of thanks. So I, Amit Guleria, Assistant Professor, Department of Laws, Dr. V. R. Ambedkar, National Law University, Sonipath, extend my heartiest thanks duly. First for making the acknowledgement of our invitation. Sir, you acknowledged our invitation. First of all, I express my heartiest thanks for the same. And secondly for enlightening us with such a significant topic of the day. You made all these very things very much clear with the statutory provisions, with your experiences, as well as whatever the case was, some way you cited. That was very knowledgeable for all of us, and you specifically mentioned the statutory provisions of Civil Procedure Code, Specific Relief Act, and as well as associated the same provision with the arbitration proceedings. So it was really very wonderful for all of us. So I again express my thanks to you as you spare very valuable time today and made all of us very much conversant with all the very practicable notions of this very provision of the amendment in the pleadings. So basically what I understood over here is all whatever this provision is being made, that is only in order to meet the justice. This is very much, you know, closely associated with the doctrine of just naturally, natural justice, as well as the doctrine of equity in order to provide the justice to the masses, because if the people, if they are not being provided with such a provision, there might be any kind of prejudice with the parties to the suit. So you very efficiently made all these provisions very much clear. So I again express my thanks for making us very much aware with all these provisions. And I also extend my heartiest thanks to beyond-law C.L.S. Manbeth for making a collaboration with Dr. V.R. Amirkar National Library City, Sonipat. And we hope that in future we will definitely go through many more such events along with. And we will definitely make as the money said, we have created a triveni. So we will definitely prove it as a golden triangle. So thank you, sir. Thanks a lot for spending your time now. The mic, this virtual mic is over to be cast, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All the participants who have been watching us live on the Facebook, YouTube, and on this platform. And it's always a pleasure connecting with Dr. B.R. Amirkar National Law University as well as Sadgme. And tomorrow, normally, we wouldn't have done it on Monday. But since Consumer Protection Act, tomorrow is a consumer day, we thought, let's talk about the unfair contract which has been incorporated in the new amendments of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. But tomorrow our collaborators would be Sadgme and C.M.R. College, Bangalore. So do stay connected with us tomorrow at 5 p.m. Tomorrow we will have Justice Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal, who is a former judge of Punjab-Rena High Court. And presently he's the president of the Consumer Regressoral Commission, Chandigarh. So do stay connected with us tomorrow at 5 p.m. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And thank you, sir, for sharing your knowledge. And it's always a pleasure learning from you. And the way you express, it also becomes an inspiration for many as if you are full of knowledge, your expressions always become more expressive and more explained and treated in the elucidated form. Thank you everyone. Thank you.