Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. KK Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385

This case tells us how courts should handle amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Supreme Court said: if an amendment is needed to decide the real dispute, the court must allow it.

• Discretion + Duty: The first part is discretionary, but the second part makes it a duty to allow necessary amendments.
• No mini-trial: At amendment stage, courts don’t test truth or falsity of the added facts.
• Outcome: Amendment allowed; Division Bench order set aside.

1. Should the appellants’ amendment be permitted under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?

• O6R17 — Two parts: (i) Discretion to allow amendments. (ii) Imperative duty to allow amendments necessary to decide the real question in controversy.
• Screening test: Is the amendment essential for a fair and complete decision? If yes, allow; don’t assess its truth now.
• Limits: No new, inconsistent cause of action that upends the original case.

• HC’s error: The Division Bench discussed merits without first asking if the amendment was necessary for deciding the dispute.
• No truth-testing now: At the amendment stage, courts do not rule on correctness or falsity of the pleaded facts.
• Consistency preserved: The amendment did not introduce a new, inconsistent cause of action.

If an amendment is required to decide the real question in controversy, the court must allow it. The stage is not for evaluating truth; that is for evidence and trial.

• Clarifies the duty part of O6R17: necessary amendments should be allowed.
• Prevents premature merits evaluation at amendment stage.
• Guides trial strategy: frame amendments around the real controversy.

• 1 O6R17 has a mandatory limb: allow necessary amendments.
• 2 Do not test truth or falsity at amendment stage.
• 3 Avoid amendments that inject new, inconsistent causes.
• 4 Focus on the real question in controversy.

Mnemonic: “NEED? THEN LEAD.”

• NEED → Is the amendment needed to decide the dispute?
• THEN → Duty under O6R17’s second part kicks in.
• LEAD → Let the case proceed to evidence; no truth-testing now.

3-Step Hook:

1. Pinpoint the real controversy.
2. Check if the amendment is essential to resolve it.
3. Ensure no new inconsistent cause is introduced.

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

Rule on amendment of pleadings; includes a duty to allow necessary amendments.

Real Question in Controversy

The core dispute the court must resolve between parties.

Section 151 CPC

Court’s inherent powers to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process.

Inconsistent Cause of Action

A new case theory that conflicts with the original case; usually not allowed by amendment.