Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Anrv.Gundlapally Ranga Rao

Legal Analysis: Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Anr. vs. Gundlapally Ranga Rao

Citation: 2026 INSC 428
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Decision: April 16, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Civil Revision Petitions.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from interfering with their possession of agricultural land. In the plaint, due to an inadvertent error, the boundaries of Survey No. 18/5 were not mentioned; only Survey No. 19/2 was described. The trial court allowed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the missing boundaries, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as he would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. Subsequently, the trial court also allowed a similar amendment in the temporary injunction application. The High Court, in revision, set aside both orders, holding that the amendment would change the nature of the property, introduce a new cause of action, and was not bona fide. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy, did not cause injustice, and was sought before the commencement of trial. The Court reiterated the settled principle that amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The appeals were allowed, and the trial court’s orders were restored.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Anr. vs. Gundlapally Ranga Rao Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 17491-17492/2023 Bench Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Date of Decision April 16, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 428 Appeal From Order dated 12.06.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP Nos. 411/2023 and 417/2023

2. Legal Framework

Laws / Rules Involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings), Order VI Rule 1 (definition of pleading), Section 151 (inherent powers), Order VII Rule 3 (boundaries of property in plaint).

• Principles of civil procedure: Liberal amendment doctrine, prejudice test, cause of action, nature of suit for permanent injunction.

Precedents Cited

The judgment does not explicitly cite external precedents but rests on the settled interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 CPC as consistently held by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions (e.g., Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram (1978), Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002), Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (2022) – the principles are standard). The Court specifically relied on the following legal propositions:

• Courts have discretion to allow amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy.

• Amendment should be allowed unless it causes prejudice or injustice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs.

• A liberal approach should be followed, avoiding technicalities.

• The object is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

What the Judgment is About

The case concerns the test for allowing an amendment of pleadings (plaint schedule/boundaries) in a suit for permanent injunction. The core question is whether an amendment sought after the filing of the written statement but before the commencement of trial, which merely adds missing boundaries of a survey number already owned by the plaintiff (and inadvertently omitted), should be allowed. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that procedural law is the handmaid of justice; amendments that do not change the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice must be liberally allowed. The High Court’s strict approach – holding that the amendment would change the nature of the property and was not bona fide – was overturned as being overly technical and contrary to settled law.

3. Relevant Facts

A. The Dispute and the Suit

• Appellants (plaintiffs): Akkiraju Panduranga Rao and another. Owners in possession of agricultural land in Survey Nos. 19/2 and 18/5 (total area: Ac. 3-49 cents) situated at Nadigudem village and mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

• Respondent (defendant): Gundlapally Ranga Rao. Owns land on the northern boundary of the suit property.

• Cause of action: The respondent allegedly started causing interference with the appellants’ possession.

• Suit filed: O.S. No. 52/2016 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, Telangana, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with possession.

• Interim relief: I.A. No. 230/2016 for ex parte temporary injunction – allowed by trial court.

B. Procedural History

• Appointment of Advocate Commissioner: Respondent filed I.A. No. 719/2016 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note physical features due to boundary disputes. Trial court allowed (07.02.2017). Appellants’ CRP No. 861/2017 against that order was dismissed by High Court (14.07.2017).

• First amendment application – I.A. No. 229/2017 (in O.S. No. 52/2016): Appellants sought amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, contending that due to an inadvertent error, the boundaries of Sy No. 18/5 had not been mentioned. Only Sy No. 19/2 was described. The respondent had filed a written statement stating that the land in the two survey numbers was not in one compact block but separated by a stream.

• Trial court order (28.03.2019): Allowed the amendment. Held that erroneous boundaries were mentioned; the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondent because he would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement and additional counter. He had already done so.

• Second amendment application – I.A. No. 515/2022 (in I.A. No. 230/2016): After the plaint was amended, the appellants sought a consequential amendment in the temporary injunction application (I.A. No. 230/2016). Trial court allowed it on 20.12.2022.

C. High Court’s Impugned Order

• Revision petitions: Respondent filed CRP No. 411/2023 (against 28.03.2019 order) and CRP No. 417/2023 (against 20.12.2022 order).

• High Court order (12.06.2023): Allowed both revisions, set aside the trial court’s orders. Reasons:
  The amendment would change the nature of the property.
  It would introduce a new cause of action.
  The application was filed after the written statement, in which the respondent had pointed out that the lands were not in one compact block but separated by a stream.
  The application appeared not to be bona fide.

• Aggrieved, the appellants filed special leave petitions, which were converted into Civil Appeals.

4. Issues

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s orders allowing amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, on the grounds that the amendment would change the nature of the property and introduce a new cause of action?

2. Whether the amendment sought by the appellants (to include the missing boundaries of Sy No. 18/5) was necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties?

3. Whether the amendment, sought after the filing of the written statement but before the commencement of trial, caused any prejudice to the respondent that could not be compensated by costs or by allowing an additional written statement?

4. Whether the High Court erred in holding that the amendment was not bona fide without any substantive finding of mala fides?

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Liberal approach to amendment of pleadings (Paras 14-17)

The Supreme Court extracted Order VI Rule 17 CPC:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed 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.”

The Court noted that the rule confers discretion on the court to allow amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The two key considerations are:

1. Whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy?

2. Can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side?

The Court held that the approach should be liberal, not technical, because the object is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to decide the case on its merits rather than on procedural defaults.

B. No change in nature of suit or cause of action (Paras 18-19)

• The suit was for permanent injunction. The appellants were already owners of both Survey Nos. 19/2 and 18/5. The amendment only added the missing boundaries of Sy No. 18/5.

• The nature of the property did not change – the appellants already claimed title and possession over that land. The amendment merely corrected an inadvertent omission in the description.

• The cause of action remained the same – interference by the respondent with possession. No new cause of action was introduced.

• The High Court’s finding that the lands were not in one compact block (separated by a stream) does not make the amendment impermissible. Even if the lands are non‑contiguous, the plaintiff is entitled to seek injunction for both parcels. The amendment only brings the plaint in line with the actual ownership.

C. Prejudice – adequately compensated (Para 18-19)

• The amendment was sought after the written statement but before the commencement of trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 (which imposes a stricter standard after trial has commenced) was not attracted.

• The trial court had specifically observed that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent because:
  The respondent had already filed a written statement raising objections about the nature of the land.
  The respondent was given an opportunity to file an additional written statement and additional counter, which he had in fact filed.
  The respondent could also cross‑examine the appellants’ witnesses on the amended pleadings.

• Prejudice, if any, is curable by costs. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had correctly balanced the interests.

D. Bona fides – no finding of mala fide (Para 20)

• The High Court observed that the application “appeared not to be bona fide” merely because it was filed after the written statement and because the respondent had pointed out the stream separation.

• The Supreme Court held that this finding was unsupported. The appellants had given a clear explanation – inadvertent error in not mentioning the boundaries of Sy No. 18/5. In the absence of any evidence of deliberate concealment or malafide intention, the amendment should not be rejected on the ground of lack of bona fides.

• Mere delay in seeking amendment (without trial having commenced) is not a ground to refuse, especially when the error is inadvertent.

E. Restoration of trial court orders (Paras 20-22)

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the trial court’s orders.

• The impugned order of the High Court was set aside; the orders of the trial court dated 28.03.2019 (I.A. No. 229/2017) and 20.12.2022 (I.A. No. 515/2022) were restored.

• The amendment sought by the appellants was allowed.

• The suit shall be adjudicated and disposed of in accordance with law.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

1. Amendment to correct inadvertent omission in property description – liberal approach: Even after the written statement is filed, if the amendment merely corrects an inadvertent omission (e.g., missing survey number or boundaries) and does not change the identity of the property or the nature of the suit, it should be liberally allowed. The fact that the defendant has pointed out an inconsistency in his written statement does not bar the plaintiff from amending to cure that inconsistency.

2. Non‑contiguity of land parcels is not a ground to refuse amendment: If a plaintiff owns two separate survey numbers that are not in one compact block (e.g., separated by a stream), he is still entitled to seek a single injunction for both. The defendant’s objection that the land is not contiguous does not make the amendment non‑bona fide or change the cause of action.

3. No prejudice if defendant gets opportunity to file additional written statement: In amendment applications under Order VI Rule 17, the proper test is whether the defendant can be compensated by costs and given a fresh opportunity to respond. If the court grants leave to file an additional written statement, the prejudice is cured. This principle applies even more strongly when the amendment is sought before trial commences.

4. High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC / Article 227 – not to interfere with discretionary orders of trial court that are reasonable: The Supreme Court implicitly held that the High Court, in civil revision, should not set aside a trial court’s order allowing amendment unless the trial court’s exercise of discretion was perverse or manifestly unjust. Here, the trial court’s discretion was sound; the High Court erred by substituting its own view.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

A. Interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 CPC (Paras 14-15)

The Court began with a bare reading of Rule 17. It emphasised the phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” – indicating that amendments can be allowed even after the filing of written statement, as long as trial has not commenced (or even after trial has commenced, but with the additional burden of showing due diligence). The proviso, which imposes a stricter test, applies only after trial has commenced. In this case, trial had not commenced. Therefore, the lower standard applied – the court only needed to see whether the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy and whether it caused prejudice that could not be compensated.

B. The “real question in controversy” test

The Court observed that the “real question in controversy” between the parties was whether the respondent was interfering with the appellants’ possession of the suit property. The suit property originally comprised both Survey Nos. 19/2 and 18/5. By omitting the boundaries of Sy No. 18/5, the plaint did not accurately reflect the subject matter of the dispute. The amendment was therefore necessary for a complete adjudication. Without the amendment, the court could not grant effective relief regarding Sy No. 18/5.

C. Change in nature of suit? No.

The High Court had held that the amendment would “change the nature of the property.” The Supreme Court clarified: the nature of the suit (permanent injunction) remained unchanged. The property itself – the land in Sy No. 18/5 – was always owned by the appellants and was always part of the dispute, although erroneously omitted. Correcting a description does not change the nature. The High Court confused “nature of the suit” with “description of the property.” The suit continues to be one for injunction; the property continues to be the same two survey numbers.

D. Prejudice analysis

The Court examined the respondent’s potential prejudice:

• Evidentiary prejudice: The respondent had already filed a written statement. After the amendment, he was permitted to file an additional written statement – which he did. He could also file additional evidence. Therefore, his ability to defend was not impaired.

• Legal prejudice: The amendment did not introduce a new legal claim (e.g., conversion of the suit from injunction to possession or declaration). The legal nature of the suit was unchanged.

• Delay: The amendment was sought in 2017, about one year after the suit was filed in 2016. The trial had not commenced. Delay alone, without demonstrable prejudice, is not a ground to refuse amendment.

The Court concluded that there was no injustice to the respondent that could not be cured by costs or by the opportunity to file an additional written statement.

E. Bona fides – High Court’s error

The High Court’s observation that the amendment was “not bona fide” was based on the fact that the respondent had, in his written statement, pointed out that the two survey numbers were separated by a stream. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning: a defendant’s assertion about the physical features of the land does not make the plaintiff’s amendment mala fide. The plaintiff’s explanation – inadvertent omission – was plausible. There was no evidence that the plaintiff deliberately concealed Sy No. 18/5. In fact, the plaintiff owned that survey number and had every interest in including it. The amendment was thus clearly bona fide.

F. Remedy: restoration of trial court orders

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s orders. It also noted that the suit shall be adjudicated in accordance with law, leaving all contentions open for trial. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the injunction claim.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a crisp, clear reaffirmation of the liberal amendment doctrine under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It correctly identifies the High Court’s error in applying a hyper‑technical approach to a simple correction of an inadvertent omission. By restoring the trial court’s discretion, the Supreme Court has emphasised that procedural laws are meant to advance justice, not to obstruct it. The judgment also implicitly checks the tendency of High Courts, in revision, to interfere with interlocutory orders that are reasonable and within the trial court’s discretion.

Potential ambiguities: The judgment does not explicitly address the point raised by the respondent – that the land in Sy Nos. 19/2 and 18/5 was separated by a stream, and therefore the suit property was not a single compact block. The Supreme Court held that non‑contiguity does not bar amendment. However, the question whether a single injunction can be granted for two non‑contiguous parcels of agricultural land when the alleged interference is only on the northern boundary (which may touch only one parcel) is a matter of evidence and merits, not amendment. The judgment correctly leaves that for trial, but a stronger clarification that the amendment does not pre‑judge the success of the suit would have been helpful.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by plaintiffs seeking amendment of property descriptions in injunction suits, particularly when the omission is inadvertent. It will also be used to argue that a defendant’s objection in the written statement about the nature of the property does not foreclose the plaintiff’s right to amend. For High Courts, the judgment serves as a reminder that revisional jurisdiction should not be used to reverse trial court orders on amendment unless the trial court’s discretion was exercised perversely.

Comparison with other amendment precedents: The judgment is in line with the Supreme Court’s consistent view in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram (1978) 2 SCC 783 (amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation, even if it introduces a new case, as long as it does not change the nature of the suit). It also follows Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559 (amendment after written statement but before trial – liberal approach). The judgment does not create new law but robustly restates existing principles.

9. Final Outcome

• Civil Appeals (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 17491-17492/2023) are allowed.

• The impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 411/2023 and 417/2023 is set aside.

• The orders passed by the trial court (Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad) dated 28.03.2019 in I.A. No. 229/2017 in O.S. No. 52/2016 and dated 20.12.2022 in I.A. No. 515/2022 in I.A. No. 230/2016 in O.S. No. 52/2016 are restored.

• The amendment sought by the appellants is allowed.

• The suit (O.S. No. 52/2016) shall be adjudicated and disposed of in accordance with law.

• Parties to bear their own costs.

• Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

By plaintiffs / applicants seeking amendment of plaint

• Timing: If you realise an error or omission in the plaint (e.g., missing survey number, wrong boundary description, incorrect area), file the amendment application as soon as possible and before trial commences. This puts you in the most favourable position – the stricter proviso (due diligence) will not apply.

• Grounds for amendment – use “inadvertent error” or “bona fide omission”: Clearly state in the affidavit that the error was inadvertent, not deliberate. If the defendant has already filed a written statement pointing out the inconsistency, use that as an opportunity to show that the amendment is necessary to match the true facts.

• Argue no prejudice: Emphasise that the defendant will be given an opportunity to file an additional written statement and additional evidence. Offer to pay costs. Cite this judgment for the proposition that amendment after written statement but before trial is liberally allowed.

• Reject “change in nature” objection: If the defendant argues that the amendment changes the nature of the suit, show that the nature (type of relief) remains the same. Correction of property description does not change the nature. Also, if the property was always owned by you, there is no change.

By defendants opposing amendment

• Demonstrate actual prejudice: Vague allegations of prejudice are not enough. Show that the amendment would deprive you of a vested right (e.g., limitation defence, or would convert the suit from injunction to declaration of title after limitation). Mere delay or inconvenience is not sufficient after this judgment.

• Show malafide or deliberate concealment: If you have evidence that the plaintiff knowingly omitted the property to obtain an interim injunction without notice, and then seeks amendment to fill gaps, you may argue that the amendment is not bona fide. However, the burden is high – this judgment requires a clear finding of mala fides.

• Argue that trial has commenced: If the trial court has already started recording evidence (e.g., examination‑in‑chief of plaintiff’s witnesses has begun), then the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 applies. The plaintiff must show due diligence. You can argue that the amendment should be refused if the plaintiff could have raised the matter earlier.

By trial courts

• Liberal approach: Follow the two‑question test: (i) Is the amendment necessary to determine the real controversy? (ii) Can it be allowed without injustice to the other side? If both are answered in favour of the applicant, allow it.

• Prejudice is curable: In most cases, prejudice can be cured by:
  Permitting the opposite party to file an additional written statement / additional counter.
  Granting costs.
  Giving an opportunity to lead additional evidence.

• Do not refuse on technical grounds: Avoid the High Court’s error in this case – do not refuse amendment merely because the defendant has pointed out an inconsistency, or because the land is non‑contiguous, or because the application came after the written statement (as long as trial has not commenced).

• Document order: Record specific findings that no prejudice is caused, or that any prejudice can be compensated. This will help defend the order against revision.

By High Courts (exercising revisional / supervisory jurisdiction)

• Limited interference: Under Section 115 CPC or Article 227, do not interfere with a trial court’s order allowing amendment unless the trial court’s discretion was exercised perversely or illegally – e.g., allowing an amendment that changes the nature of the suit, introduces a time‑barred claim, or is otherwise manifestly unjust.

• No substitution of view: If the trial court’s decision is one of two possible reasonable views, the High Court should not substitute its own view. This judgment implicitly restrains High Courts from doing so.

• Check for trial commencement: Before setting aside an amendment order, verify whether trial has actually commenced. If not, the liberal approach applies.

11. Court Lines

“From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that the courts have a discretion to allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.” (Para 15)

“The points of consideration … for deciding an application for amendment, are reiterated as under: Firstly, whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy? and Secondly, can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side?” (Para 16)

“It is a settled position of law that while deciding an application seeking amendment of pleadings, courts should not delve into the technicalities of law; rather, a liberal approach should be followed, inasmuch as the object and purpose of allowing amendment in the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.” (Para 17)

“The trial court rightly allowed the application seeking amendment of the suit property in a suit for permanent injunction, inasmuch as the same was necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy.” (Para 18)

“We find that the High Court was not right in setting aside the orders passed by the Trial Court dated 28.03.2019 in I.A. No.229/2017 and 20.12.2022 in I.A. No.515/2022 in I.A. No.230/2016 in O.S. No.52/2016. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the aforesaid orders passed by the Trial Court are restored. The amendment sought for by the appellants herein is consequently allowed.” (Para 20)

“It is needless to observe that the suit shall be adjudicated and disposed of in accordance with law.” (Para 21)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For plaintiffs (landowners / possession claimants)

Before filing suit: Ensure that the plaint schedule and boundaries are meticulously drafted. Cross‑verify with revenue records (pahani, jamabandi, title deeds). If there are two or more survey numbers, include all boundaries. Use the services of a licensed surveyor if needed.

If you discover an error after filing suit: File an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 immediately, before the defendant files written statement or before trial commences. In the affidavit, state the error as “inadvertent” and explain how it occurred (e.g., “by oversight, the boundaries of Sy No. X were not mentioned”). Emphasise that the amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy – which is the interference with possession over both survey numbers.

If the defendant has already filed written statement opposing the amendment: Do not be discouraged. This judgment expressly states that amendment after written statement but before trial is permissible. Argue:

• The amendment does not change the nature of the suit (it remains a suit for injunction).

• The same cause of action – the amendment merely corrects the description.

• No prejudice because the defendant can file an additional written statement.

• The amendment will avoid multiplicity of litigation (otherwise you would have to file a separate suit for the omitted survey number).

Use this judgment to rebut High Court interference: If the High Court, in revision, sets aside the trial court’s amendment order on technical grounds, cite this judgment for the proposition that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Argue that the trial court’s discretion was reasonably exercised; the High Court cannot substitute its own view merely because it would have decided differently.

For defendants (neighbouring landowners)

When opposing amendment: Do not rely on generic arguments like “delay” or “bona fides” without concrete evidence. Instead, demonstrate irreversible prejudice – for example:

• The amendment would introduce a property that is time‑barred (e.g., if the plaintiff never had title to that survey number and the suit for injunction would effectively become a suit for declaration of title, which is barred by limitation).

• The amendment would change the character of the suit from injunction to possession or specific performance, requiring a different court fee and different evidence.

• The trial has already commenced (witnesses examined), and the plaintiff cannot show due diligence for not raising the matter earlier.

If the amendment is allowed by trial court, and you believe it is perverse, you may file a revision. But after this judgment, High Courts will be less inclined to interfere. Focus on showing that the trial court’s order was perverse – i.e., no reasonable court could have allowed it. Mere disagreement is not enough.

For trial court judges

• Checklist before allowing amendment:
  Has trial commenced? If no, apply liberal approach.
  Is the amendment necessary to decide the real controversy? (If the omitted fact goes to the root of the dispute, answer yes.)
  Will it cause prejudice to the opposite party? Prejudice means legal prejudice (e.g., losing a limitation defence, being forced to face a new cause of action that is time‑barred). Procedural inconvenience is not prejudice.
  Can prejudice be cured? If yes (by costs, additional written statement, additional evidence), allow the amendment.

• Record reasons: Even if the amendment is allowed, record a brief order stating that (i) the amendment is necessary, (ii) no irreparable prejudice, (iii) the opposite party is granted liberty to file additional pleadings. This will protect your order from being set aside in revision.

For High Court judges (revisional jurisdiction)

• Do not treat amendment orders as final judgments: Exercise restraint. The trial court is best placed to assess the need for amendment and the prejudice, because it is familiar with the case file and the stage of proceedings.

• Only interfere if: (i) The amendment changes the nature of the suit (e.g., converts an injunction into a money suit or a suit for possession after dispossession); (ii) The amendment introduces a totally new and inconsistent cause of action; (iii) The amendment is sought after trial has commenced and the plaintiff fails to show due diligence; or (iv) The trial court’s order is manifestly unjust (e.g., allowing an amendment that is clearly time‑barred).

• Avoid substituting your own view: The fact that you would have refused the amendment does not make the trial court’s order wrong. The Supreme Court in this judgment has made it clear that a “plausible” view by the trial court should be respected.