Amendment of Pleadings to Correct Boundary Description Allowed Liberally if Necessary to Decide Real Controversy: Supreme Court

Case Name: Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Anr. v. Gundlapally Ranga Rao
Citation: 2026 INSC 428
Date of Judgment/Order: April 16, 2026
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Held: The Supreme Court held that amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be allowed liberally where it is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and does not cause prejudice to the opposite side. The Court clarified that correction of boundary descriptions in a suit property due to inadvertent error does not amount to changing the nature of the suit or introducing a new cause of action.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit for permanent injunction relating to agricultural land, where the plaintiffs sought amendment of the plaint schedule to correct an omission in boundary description of one of the survey numbers. The trial court allowed the amendment, holding it necessary to determine the real controversy and caused no prejudice to the defendant. However, the High Court set aside the amendment on the ground that it would alter the nature of the property and introduce a new cause of action. Before the Supreme Court, the issue centered on the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and whether such amendment was permissible. The Court reiterated that amendments should be allowed if they assist in adjudicating the real dispute and avoid multiplicity of litigation. It found that the omission was inadvertent and the amendment was sought before commencement of trial, and that the defendant had adequate opportunity to respond. The Court held that the High Court adopted an unduly technical approach and failed to apply settled principles governing amendment of pleadings.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the trial court’s orders permitting amendment of the plaint and injunction application, directed continuation of the suit in accordance with law, and ordered parties to bear their own costs with all pending applications disposed of.